You may recall we mentioned at the conclusion of “Broken Hartz Really Like This”, we were sorting out some details with Facebook.
Here’s what’s been going on:
“Re: Re: Re: Re: Trademark Notification Complaint: #118834674907699
On Monday, March 19, 2012 at 1:21 PM, Broken Hartz wrote:
Thank you so much for understanding the sensitive nature of this matter and allowing us to maintain our anonymity.
In moving forward, may we ask the account Facebook.com/BrokenHartzPets be transferred to us so we may begin to spread our important message through our rightful Facebook page?
Additionally, since we are the rightful owners of the Broken Hartz/Broken Hartz Pets servicemark, we feel it is our right to know what individual or corporation was guilty of the infringement. Any information would be greatly appreciated.
Thank you again. We hope to be on Facebook soon!
“Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trademark Notification Complaint: #118834674907699
On Monday, March 19, 2012 at 1:49 PM, The Facebook Team wrote:
For policy reasons, we are not able to grant your request for administrative access to this Facebook Page and cannot provide identifying information about current or previous admins. We regret any inconvenience.
Please let us know whether you wish for the Page to remain disabled.
[Facebook Team Member]
“Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trademark Notification Complaint: #118834674907699
On Monday, March 19, 2012 at 2:57 PM, Broken Hartz wrote:
Firstly, let us repeat how overjoyed we are to hear of the Company’s decision. We wholeheartedly thank Facebook.
We wish to follow up, however, on the denial of our request to be granted use of our rightful page. We feel it unfair to discover we will never be allowed to use our protected servicemark simply because someone unjustly infringed on our servicemark before we could claim what is rightfully ours. To illustrate the point: does this mean Disney would not have been allowed to use Facebook.com/Disney if some unscrupulous individual squatted on the page first?
Additionally, we are stressed to discover that while the infringing party is commonly handed all personal details regarding a complainant, Facebook denies the complainant’s right to that information when the complaint is found to be valid. We firmly believe we have a right to know who had infringed on our servicemark.
We are strongly considering legal action against those who would violate our servicemark but, in order to do so, we need to know who they are.
We request Facebook to reconsider this additional request.
Lastly, if Facebook decides to deny these requests, we affirm our wish for the offending account to remain disabled permanently.
“Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trademark Notification Complaint: #118834674907699
On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 5:09 PM, The Facebook Team wrote:
Unfortunately, we cannot make any changes to a Page’s administrative privileges. We apologize for the inconvenience.
Thanks for contacting Facebook,
[Facebook Team Member]
“Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trademark Notification Complaint: #118834674907699
On Tuesday, March 20, 2012 at 7:31 PM, Broken Hartz wrote:
Thank you. We are disappointed, but respect Facebook’s decision and will no longer argue this point.
To finalize this matter, may we ask what the final decision is regarding our request for details regarding the infringing party? As mentioned previously, this is of utmost importance to us in the event we wish to pursue legal action against those who would violate our organization’s servicemark, especially considering this action has caused permanent unavailability of our rightful servicemark use on Facebook.
“Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trademark Notification Complaint: #118834674907699
On Tuesday, March 26, 2012 at 11:39 AM, The Facebook Team wrote:
In order to further assist you with your request, we will need to receive a valid subpoena or court order. Additionally, please be aware that there are situations where we may be unable to retrieve the information that you have requested due to technical limitations.
You should contact a lawyer or your local law enforcement agency and discuss this issue with them. If you decide to pursue legal action, please have the lawyer or officer contact us at the following address:
Once they contact us, we will be able to communicate with them regarding the issue.
[Facebook Team Member]
“Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Trademark Notification Complaint: #118834674907699
On Tuesday, March 26, 2012 at 10:06 PM, Broken Hartz wrote:
Thank you very much.
We are disappointed to hear Facebook has seen fit to deny our right to know the infringing party’s identity, in the absence of a subpoena or court order.
We wish to thank you for your time and for shutting down the infringing account, as that was the most important action. We are happy to be able to proceed with using the powerful communication services of Facebook, free from infringement.
In moving forward, we have noted your requirements and simply ask you to file the pertinent information for as long as possible, in the event we move forward with legal action.
We take this matter very seriously and, though we are already well aware of the infringing party, the crucial evidence on file with Facebook will be invaluable to supporting our claims.
We already have evidence from Pinterest of Hartz being the guilty party infringing on Pinterest.com/brokenhartzpets, but without actual evidence from Facebook it will be difficult, though not impossible, for an organization such as ours to fight a multi-billion dollar army of unscrupulous lawyers.
Broken Hartz Pets
There you have it folks!
Please like us on Facebook at Facebook.com/SuperBrokenHartzPets.
We’ve been working on a great Hartz Mountain Corporation timeline, which we are currently expanding. The new Facebook interface has been glitchy and we lost a lot of good content, but we expect to work through it.
By the way, Hartz:
We are glad Facebook shut you down, but it would seem your advertising dollars have caused them to provide what you view as protection.
We know you read our blog and we wish to make clear, in the absence of any evidence from Facebook proving otherwise, Broken Hartz will continue to assume you to be guilty, given your history of infringing on our servicemark and the fact this infringement ran concurrently with your Pinterest offense.
If you wish to prove this is not the case, we strongly encourage you to throw more of your dirty money Facebook’s way and persuade them to release the information that would clear your name.
Or, would there be an obvious problem with that?