Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[insearchof]

Our company Facebook page was disabled by Facebook after request by a party claiming we were infringing on their name.  The page is a critical tool for us to reach our customers and suppliers.  Besides the fact that we don't believe we are infringing, we believe their name is subject to cancellation because it is sufficiently generic and it is in the Supplemental Register.

How long does a cancellation process take? 

Second question.  Was it lawful for the party to demand to Facebook that they shut down our page when the only remedy for a Supplemental Registration is to go to federal court?

[OMG IP]

What do you mean "lawful to make a demand of FB"?  What is unlawful about that?

And surely you read the fine print in the very lengthy user agreement?  I will summarize: Facebook can do what ever it wants with your FB page.

[insearchof]

OMG IP,

My question was about the supplemental mark holder's action in demanding that Facebook disable a page without having first gone to federal court.  It was not a question about Facebook's action.

[khazzah]

Was it lawful for the party to demand to Facebook that they shut down our page when the only remedy for a Supplemental Registration is to go to federal court?

"Was it lawful" is a really broad question. Are you really asking if there is a cause of action against the supplemental mark holder that is related to trademark law?

[insearchof]

Khazzah,

Yes, correct.  I understand I am posting in an IP forum and I am searching to find out if there is any prohibition to this action by any law in this field that is applicable.

Or maybe the law only states that a supplemental mark holder's only right in case of infringement is to go to federal court, which implies that the mark holder may not take other actions but does not specifically ban it, in which case it could be a gray area. 

[khazzah]

I am searching to find out if there is any prohibition to this action by any law in this field [trademark] that is applicable.

Or maybe the law only states that a supplemental mark holder's only right in case of infringement is to go to federal court, which implies that the mark holder may not take other actions but does not specifically ban it, in which case it could be a gray area. 

I am not aware of any trademark cause of action against the supplemental mark holder for "demanding" that Facebook take down your page.

But I don't have a lot of trademark experience. Maybe someone else with more experience will chime in.

[JSonnabend]

The claim, if anything, would be along the lines of "tortious interference."  My advice is to speak directly to a qualified attorney about your situation.  Communication from an attorney to FB might do the trick, as might a properly fashioned letter to the other party.

- Jeff

[southerngirl]

insearchof, I hate to be the bearer of bad news but you will NOT get your facebook page back up unless 1 of 2 things happens (1) the other party agrees to allow it be put back up (2) you get a court order that instructs Facebook to put it back up

Don't waste your time on a Facebook appeal as those are only considered for copyright infringements - yours is a trademark infringement. 

I am in a lawsuit right now where the other party took MY page down as a strictly retaliatory act because I took theirs down for obvious infringement. If this thing goes all the way to trial, I can guarantee that we will be asking for plenty of damages and will probably also get attorney fees as their act was obviously in bad faith.

Anyway, that is the harsh reality. I cannot believe that this kind of thing can happen but I've learned that it can and, obviously, does. Good luck.