&#62; That doesn't make it anything other than an absolute no-hoper of a case<p>Errm. No, sorry. I wished that was true but it really isn't.<p>If you are a corporation suing another corporation for trademark infringement on something as silly as what is essentially a path name then you can only lose, even if you win. After all, both parties can expect to pay a solid amount of money to their lawyers, and only in rare exceptions will you be able to recover that.<p>The monetary loss due to the lawsuit could only be offset by an unknown quantity of PR backlash in case you give in too early.<p>But lose you will. So by suing, even if the one party 'has no case' there is a fair chance the other one will call it a day and give in.<p>Simply because it isn't worth $50K to $100K or thereabouts to facebook to stand by this one individual user.<p>On the one hand I don't blame facebook, on the other I think they are underestimating the $value of that PR backlash.<p>If facebook is lucky some of the PR flak will be directed at Harman International and they will reconsider their stupid request.<p>Facebook is between a rock and a hard place on this one. On the one hand a company that has a legitimate (even if it is a stretch) reason to sue, which will cost them money, on the other hand their users who will all feel their vanity urls are going to be given to the highest bidder or the one with the largest legal department.<p>Neither is good.<p>Facebook giving in this quickly is definitely a losing proposition to them, they should have said, 'ok, this user <i>may</i> be infringing, but since that is not proven in a court of law you will have to get a ruling, and then we will yank the account <i>but</i> you can not have it'.<p>By rolling over like this and potentially giving harman international the url they have clearly crossed a bunch of lines.