Where use of a product is appropriate in a story, do you use the brand name? He sprayed with Windex? (glass cleaner?) He lit up a Camel? (cigarette?) She took a sip from a Thermos bottle? (insulated container?) They recharged the Tesla? (all-electric car?)
Generally and probably only when the brand-name has become synonymous with the product. Think Kleenex, Popsicle, ChapStick, Q-Tip, Sharpie, etc.
Otherwise, when there's a specific point to be made, specific character growth, or a plot to further. "He only smoked SomeRandomYetRare cigarettes since that's what his dead mom always smoked, but they sure were getting harder and harder to find lately, which led him to a strange neighborhood late that night." Or any of the Ford vs Chevy or other car guy stuff seen. Or go back and look at the gun-specific threads for those items, where people reference specific guns vs just saying handgun, pistol, rifle, etc.
Yes.
Why? Two reasons:
1. To make it more real.
2. When the brand has significance. For example, a Mercedes vs a Ford.
3. When the brand owner is paying you for product placement. (Yes, I know this is not likely to happen for an SOL author)
4. When the brand choice says something about the character (Apple cultists).
3. When the brand owner is paying you for product placement. (Yes, I know this is not likely to happen for an SOL author)
"Oh my God! Stop! That cheap condom broke! I told you I only trust Nirvana Condoms by Trojan!"
That cheap condom broke! I told you I only trust Nirvana Condoms
Which do no good if the guy goes off like a shotgun...
*quietly slips away*
2. When the brand has significance. For example, a Mercedes vs a Ford.
That has potential dangers - brand names may have different positioning in different countries.
AJ
I see way too 'iPhone' where a generic 'phone' would make no difference to the story. In the US 'iPhone' might almost be synonym for 'phone' but in the rest of the world it's not. Asia is almost 100% Android and in Europe the iPhone is just a small percentage. Readers from Asia might know about the iPhone but couldn't relate to why 'iPhone' is used and not just 'phone' (or 'smartphone').
Like Switch Blayde said: Unless the brand has significance use 'phone', not 'iPhone'.
In the US 'iPhone' might almost be synonym for 'phone' but in the rest of the world it's not.
It isn't, generally, but those in the cult of Apple tend to use it that way.
It can be significant to a story in that there is a certain culture around fans of iBling.
I think the term "phone" can be misunderstood by various generations. Some of us grew up with what is now called "land lines." The ones growing up think of the iPhone type when phone is used. In my life time there has been land lines, (subtype-cordless), flip and smart phone.
I think the term "phone" can be misunderstood by various generations. Some of us grew up with what is now called "land lines." The ones growing up think of the iPhone type when phone is used. In my life time there has been land lines, (subtype-cordless), flip and smart phone.
No one is getting confused by the term 'phone'. If you understand 'iPhone' you understand 'phone'. If someone thinks of an 'iPhone' when reading 'phone' than the generic term probably did exactly what it was supposed to do: mention the device that was used. In most cases it makes absolutely no difference what type or brand of phone was used. The other way around has a chance of confusing the biggest part of people in the world.
In most cases using 'phone' will achieve exactly what the author wants to say, if required a distinction can be made between corded and mobile. The same goes for most other brands. The generic term should be used and only use a brand name if it is required for specifics, but that should be explained in the story for those unfamiliar with that brand name.
I think the term "phone" can be misunderstood by various generations.
Yes, it's off-putting when an author uses 'phone' and I make an assumption about what sort that subsequently proves wrong.
AJ
I agree and with a further reason. A few years ago, I wrote some scenes with Blackberrys and PDAs. Today its just phones, or cells.
Today its just phones, or cells.
There is such a plethora of brands with droid or windows phones that most people don't even think about the phone brand.
The exception is the Apple cultists for whom all cell phones are iPhones.
Note: Not everyone who has an iPhone is an Apple cultist. You can identify the Apple cultists by their assumption that anyone who has a cell phone has an iPhone.
Asia is almost 100% Android and in Europe the iPhone is just a small percentage.
Maybe that should change. Israel has "'zero-click' software, which infected targeted cell phones without any interaction from the user, allowing the operatives to access all information on the device and to activate the microphone to eavesdrop on conversations.
"Almost all iPhone devices not operating Apple's latest iOS 14 version, which was released in September, are believed to be vulnerable to the code."
The "malware likely created by Israeli spy tech company NSO Group targeted 36 reporters from the Qatari state-owned broadcaster and a London-based journalist for another Qatari-owned network, according to a report published Sunday by researchers at the University of Toronto's Citizen Lab.
"The report's authors concluded with 'medium confidence' that the governments of Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, both users of NSO Group's Pegasus spyware, were behind the attacks.
"With Bahrain and the UAE recently establishing diplomatic relations with Israel, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu reportedly secretly visiting Saudi Arabia to meet Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, the use of Israeli spyware in the region may now accelerate."
Maybe that should change.
Sk, because the apple OS is vulnerable, people should prefer it?
Maybe that should change. Israel has "'zero-click' software, which infected targeted cell phones without any interaction from the user, allowing the operatives to access all information on the device and to activate the microphone to eavesdrop on conversations.
Yep, read multiple tech articles about it. But I don't see what that has to do with low usage of iphones outside the US and why that should change?
I use them often enough that my editor, Pixel the Cat, complains.
For me, some brands are the terms for the product, Kleenex or Tampax. I'll "go to the store to get Kleenex," and return with a competing brand.
Other times, and much more rarely, the brand specifies a level. Two of my characters drove Buicks.
Thermos bottle? (insulated container?)
I was unaware that tis is a brand name.Even knowingthat, I'll still se the first term.
Thermos bottle? (insulated container?)
A thermos is a bit more specific than an insulated container. It is specifically an insulated container for drinkable liquids.
A cooler is also an insulated container, but it is not a thermos.
Thermos actually sold coolers too.
But yes, 'thermos'='vacuum bottle' is a term that is near a generic. (My personal favorite example was from Aladdin, with a Stanley tag on it... half gallon capacity. Durable. Useful in a fight, if it came down to it.)
Thermos actually sold coolers too.
I knew that, but the use of thermos as a generic term, which is what I was talking about, is limited to insulated bottles.
But yes, 'thermos'='vacuum bottle' is a term that is near a generic. (My personal favorite example was from Aladdin, with a Stanley tag on it... half gallon capacity. Durable. Useful in a fight, if it came down to it.)
thermos (lower-case t) is in fact a generic name, as of a 1962 court decision. Thermos (capital T) is a brand name, now owned by Nippon Sanso Corp.
I don't recall the year, but I believe what Thermos lost was protection against its trademark, not its brand name.
I don't recall the year, but I believe what Thermos lost was protection against its trademark, not its brand name.
Trademark is the only legal protection a brand name can have.
ETA: A number of well known companies reincorporated with the new legal company name as just an initialism of their original corporate name.
IBM(formerly International Business Machines), KFC(formerly Kentucky Fried Chicken),
BP(Formerly British Petroleum),
These a just a few examples. Part of the driver behind this was several other companies loosing trade mark protection for their corporate name because the corporate name was too generic and/or descriptive.
I don't recall the year, but I believe what Thermos lost was protection against its trademark, not its brand name.
Thermos (upper case T) is a currently registered trademark of Thermos LLC. in 2018 it was registered and renewed for 10 years.
thermos (lower case t) is a generic name for a double walled bottle with a vacuum between the walls as the result of a court decision in 1962.
Thermos LLC also sells plastic lunch containers for kids. There's no vacuum in there, unless mom's cooking really sucks.
According to the history on their website Thermos, the trademarked name is the company that makes thermos bottles. That was the name given to the 1903 adaption of the Dewar Flask invented in 1892 by Charles Dewar by the glass blowers who manufactured it for the inventor. They added a metal covering so it was suitable for home use. They called it a thermos from the Greek Therme for heat. It's generic and trademarked but like hoover is the common name used for a vacuum cleaner in England it is also a brand name when capitalized. The other products such as coolers and lunch boxes were added much later.
also a brand name when capitalized.
The problem for a company is, if they allow people to use their brand name without capitalizing it, it becomes a generic word. Some companies are more protective of their trademarks than others and will go after anyone not capitalizing it.
The problem for a company is, if they allow people to use their brand name without capitalizing it, it becomes a generic word.
It some countries that's the law, while in others it's not. While some countries have laws that proclaim you as having surrendered your right to protect you name if you don't defend it from all comers other countries allow you to pick and choose who to attack without any loss of authority or rights. So a lot depends on the country you're in and the country the problem arises in.
While some countries have laws that proclaim you as having surrendered your right to protect you name if you don't defend it from all comers
This would be the US, for some values of "all comers".
Someone using a trademark name to refer to the product/company for which the trademark was obtained (even if the reference is disparaging) is not a violation of the trademark rights and as such, doesn't need to be defended against.
There are two things that under US law have to be defended against or a company risks having the trademark deemed abandoned.
1. People using it as a generic term. Here defense doesn't have to be in court. A media campaign to push back against the generic use can be sufficient unless someone else goes to court to have the trademark deemed abandoned.
2. A competitor using the trademark (or something close enough to it to create consumer confusion) to refer to their product.
On the other hand, unlike Patents and copyrights, trademarks don't have a built in expiration date. They last as long as the company that was granted the trademark continues to use it.
Someone using a trademark name to refer to the product/company for which the trademark was obtained (even if the reference is disparaging) is not a violation of the trademark rights and as such, doesn't need to be defended against.
Not sure about that. There have been suits over it, like the Dallas Cowboys Cheerleaders (owners of the trademark) suing the makers of the porn movie "Debbie Does Dallas."
From http://www.rightsofwriters.com/2010/12/can-i-mention-brand-name-products-in-my.html
"Defamation" and "tarnishment" are the areas where there could, in rare instances, be greater cause for concern. If, for example, you falsely depict a brand name product as being dangerous or defective, a manufacturer could be heard to complain. Ultimately, the manufacturer should have to prove that some readers actually understood the disparaging depiction to be a statement of fact, not fiction, but there is seldom an artistic necessity to test that line.
Trademark "tarnishment" is a kind of hybrid between trademark dilution and defamation. Such claims arise when a non-owner uses another's trademark in highly disparaging or offensive contexts. The best-known tarnishment case was a successful claim by the Dallas Cowboy Cheerleaders (who owned a registered trademark) against the makers of the pornographic movie, Debbie Does Dallas, in which the actresses were depicted in the cheerleaders' trademarked uniforms, to the extent that they were depicted in anything at all. The Appeals Court's famous (at least to trademark lawyers) decision is here. Notwithstanding the Debbie Does Dallas decision, some uses of trademarks in ways that the owner regard as highly disparaging may be successfully defended as parody, as described in this online article by Leslie Lott and Brett Hutton.
Not sure about that. There have been suits over it
Yes, companies are likely to sue over trademark "tarnishment", and I never said they couldn't, but it's not something they could lose the trademark for if they didn't sue over it.
It's a separate tort related to defamation, it's not a violation of the rights protected by trademark law.
but it's not something they could lose the trademark
Oh, I misunderstood. I believe the only way you can lose the trademark is if you allow people to use it generically (lower case) like thermos.
Oh, I misunderstood. I believe the only way you can lose the trademark is if you allow people to use it generically (lower case) like thermos.
Not quite, a company can also lose a trade mark because they ignored competitors misusing it, not as a generic but in "counterfeit" goods or a close imitation of a trademark for competing goods.
The first offense is a tort, after the first one it is a retort.
And a tortita is a small pancake.
I think it can add realism to the story.
I had a character order a Voodoo Ranger instead of a "beer".
I do hesitate if it will reflect negatively on the brand.
For instance I wouldn't mention a rapist is wearing a Nike shirt.
I had a character order a Voodoo Ranger instead of a "beer".
Ok, I seldom drink beer, so I thought a Voodoo Ranger was a Haitian National Park employee.
I do hesitate if it will reflect negatively on the brand.
You can be sued if you do that. Like if the Mercedes in your story keeps breaking down (i.e., trademark tarnishment and defamation).
I do it quite often, especially if it is a period piece, and the brand is one that is no longer in use, but helps to set the time of the story.
Some things may be meaningless to modern readers, but saying something like "Space Food Sticks", "Aqua-Net Hairspray", and "Hai-Karate Cologne" bring definite memories back to those that are old enough to remember those products. Even if only sometimes it is the commercials.
To many in here, I am sure if I wrote something like "Calgon, take me away!", "I can't believe I ate the whole thing", "Plop-Plop, Fizz-Fizz", or "I've got to get up to make the doughnuts" brings back strong memories. And to this day I still can not hear the theme song to The Magnificent Seven, and not think of Marlboro Cigarettes. As that was the theme song played on their commercials from 1963 until 1971 when cigarette commercials were banned in the US.
"Calgon, take me away!"
I have that as a line in A True History Book Two, actually.
"Where's the beef?"
I usually don't mention specific brand names, but there are times I do it for a specific effect due to what the public knows about the brand, but I also make sure the context makes it clear what the brand means. For example, instead of saying 'They went to eat at McDonalds,' the first reference will say something like, 'They went to get a hamburger at the local McDonalds,' so people who aren't familiar with McDonalds will know it's a fast food place. When I mention a car is a Porsche it's because I want the reader to know it's an expensive sports car and not a normal sedan.
As to another comment made here, to me iPhone is an action I do and not an item I use.
When I do use a brand name I make a point of using it in a positive manner so I can avoid any chance at litigation.
Think Kleenex, Popsicle, ChapStick, Q-Tip, Sharpie,
In Chile, they have Kleenex and Sharpies, but no Popsicle or Q-Tips.
They do know Betty Crocker, but not Aunt Jemima or Uncle Ben.
But the shocking thing is, in Chile, they have toilet tissue ON SALE, prices marked down. No shortage. Makes you wonder, doesn't it?
https://www.jumbo.cl
Jumbo is like WalMart, without the shortages and with a much better website. Scroll to the bottom and look for Recetas - will make you hungry.
In Generous Offers Mike's ladies (read: sluts) parents were originally working for IBM. They had to move to San Jose and later back to Pennsylvania. Before publishing, IBM became "a large high tech research company". I was going to name Fidelity as the investment company but changed it to "Iron Age Investments." (Finding a reasonable name that had not been used required more looking than I had expected.) I also invented a bank in Pennsylvania.
I did not wish large real companies to have grounds to bother me.
In my Z stories, I used pop tarts as a quick breakfast food. I hope the Kellogg Company will not complain about fictional characters eating their toaster pastries. At least I did not spell it "Pop-Tarts®".
Off the top of my head, I can think of two Brand names in the UK - comedienne Jo Brand and druggie celeb Russell Brand ;-)
AJ
Occasionally. Characters drink 'Coke', for instance, not 'soda'. Admittedly, my story is set in 1980 Houston, where 'Coke' was nearly a generic term. 'Pepsi' was often a type of 'Coke'.
One character drives a 1971 Buick LeSabre. Hard to avoid the brand name; 'land yacht' simply begs the question of which one, and why aren't I mentioning the make and model.
Several restaurants are mentioned by name; others are fictionalized. Depends on how they interact with the plot.
Occasionally. Characters drink 'Coke', for instance, not 'soda'. Admittedly, my story is set in 1980 Houston, where 'Coke' was nearly a generic term. 'Pepsi' was often a type 'Coke'.
I do the same thing. I even used the word "pop" in one of mine, because I wanted readers who pay attention to realize it was set in the Midwest.
the word "pop" in one of mine, because I wanted readers who pay attention to realize it was set in the Midwest.
Not just the Midwest. In NYC, it was soda. But in Arizona (southwest), it's pop.
I do the same thing. I even used the word "pop" in one of mine, because I wanted readers who pay attention to realize it was set in the Midwest.
I wouldn't rely on the use of regional specific words to do that unless you explain them at first usage. Regardless of where the story is set and whatever area the character comes from, unless I'm told beforehand I'd assume anyone who has a can of Coke or coke is drinking the dark fluid made by a certain Atlanta based drink company. However, if they were to 'pop some coke' I would be assuming they're using a certain white powder that's unlawful to use in most places.
As to the word 'pop' itself, context is very important as while I, like most people around the world, see soda pop as a drink I don't automatically assume 'pop' is a drink because some places use that word for an ice block like what the people in the US call a popcicle - not sure on spelling as it ain't in da dictionary.
I, like most people around the world, see soda pop as a drink
And while it started that way, many regional variants dropped one word or the other. Where I am, you can ask for a soda, or a pop, and be given (shudder) a Pepsi, but if you ask for a Coke, you should get the good stuff (Coca Cola. Otherwise you just ask for 'coke' - or 'white' or 'soft' - not 'a Coke'.)
Where I am, you can ask for a soda, or a pop, and be given (shudder) a Pepsi, but if you ask for a Coke, you should get the good stuff (Coca Cola.
Oddly enough, most places down here insist you name the specific drink you want as either a brand or a flavour - so if you ask for cola you can get Pepsi or Coca Cola or whatever other brand of cola they have on hand, the same with lemonade etc., otherwise you ask for Leed, Pepsi, Coke, etc.
True here if at a business establishment. If visiting someone, tho, being that specific may be troubling.
If I use a brand name in the story it is usually because that's the way real people use it. Doing otherwise renders conversation and description, in my view, sterile and uninteresting.
Nope. Unless it's a synonym for the product due to folks getting lucky - like linoleum, kleenex, etc.
I haven't found any reason to mention a brand that actually helps the story. Usually, it's far too much technical information.
In a recent tale on another site, the protagonist uses a "tablet" and a "phone", and I never once felt bad about not knowing the particular brands or what apps they preferred for various things. Even though the story revolves around technology and accidents happening, getting into the details wouldn't serve any purpose.
Plus, not mentioning specifics makes takes the tale 'out of time'. Iow, you can actually believe the "science" in the story because you aren't trying to force yourself to believe that the story is taking place in the here-n-now with current levels of tech/science. It could be in an alternate reality that's very similar to ours while also being different in small ways. By not giving too much detail, you can maintain the suspension of disbelief.
Plus, not mentioning specifics makes takes the tale 'out of time'.
Another reason for sometimes using brand names.
In the movie "Blast from the Past," they were going through the hotel room of the guy who was born in a bomb shelter and spent his first 30-something years of life down there. They came upon stuff like Ipana toothpaste and made the comment, "I haven't seen this brand in years."
In the movie "Blast from the Past," they were going through the hotel room of the guy who was born in a bomb shelter and spent his first 30-something years of life down there. They came upon stuff like Ipana toothpaste and made the comment, "I haven't seen this brand in years."
I had never heard of it but the text explains what it is and that it is very old in just a few words. That is a good use of a brand name.
Whereas, when writing a do-over set firmly in a particular time, the opposite matters. In 1980, it matters a great deal that the computer received as a Christmas gift was an Apple II+ and not, say, a TRS-80. Or it could; the computer admittedly gets such short shrift that maybe it doesn't matter. Yet, to most readers aware of the time, it would be weird to not know what sort of computer it was.
And, as mentioned before, for a high schooler's used car, make and model matter. There's no reason to generalize it; it's a specific type of car.
On the other hand, those are unusual, high-ticket items. The type of shampoo matters not at all, so it's 'shampoo'. So far clothing brands don't matter; neither do store brands for the most part.
On the other hand, this discussion just reminded me to check and, lo and behold, I've got some references to 'Walgreens' that would be better off as 'drug store'. Time to edit! Radio Shack, however, can stay Radio Shack; some things must be as they were.
So far clothing brands don't matter
Clothing brands could matter if a character wears expensive designer clothes or top end suits (Armani upwards of $1K a pop)
Oh, definitely clothing brands can matter. I was making a specific comment about the story I'm writing; up to now, no one's worn anything for which the brand matters.
The minute someone shows up in an Armani suit, it'll matter. And there are characters who might well do just that (even kids, and certainly some parents).
Oh - Lamborghini is mentioned, speaking of car brands. The point of mentioning it is how unusual it is to see one in a high school parking lot; it needs to be specific.
Speaking of which, I once saw someone who took a Lamborghini to shop at the grocery store located a block from the high school featured in my current story.
Clothing brands could matter if a character wears expensive designer clothes or top end suits (Armani upwards of $1K a pop)
That reminds me of the scene in back to the Future where they think he has personalized underwear and the brand name was his name.
Whereas, when writing a do-over set firmly in a particular time, the opposite matters. In 1980, it matters a great deal that the computer received as a Christmas gift was an Apple II+ and not, say, a TRS-80. Or it could; the computer admittedly gets such short shrift that maybe it doesn't matter. Yet, to most readers aware of the time, it would be weird to not know what sort of computer it was.
Yeah; my current WIP is not a do-over, but is specifically set in June 1984. It's not just character- and setting-building, but actually plot-relevant that my MC's work computer is an IBM PC XT, but her home computer is only an IBM PC.
Her car has a specific make and model, too, and if GM has a problem with how she talks about it, they should keep in mind that truth is an absolute defense against libel charges, and that by 1984, they'd changed the thing's name and badge because they could no longer sell them to people who knew what they were getting.
For a manufacturer to win a trademark infringement judgement against an author when the particular brand is mentioned in a fictional work is very difficult to accomplish.
The plaintiff would need to show proof that the use of the trademarked product name was likely to confuse consumers as to the source of the goods or services, makes them less distinctive and lessens the ability of a consumer to distinguish the goods or services from others because the trademark becomes synonymous with a general class of products or services, or portrays a trademarked product in a negative light, destroying its commercial value, thus tarnishing the trademark.
If one of your characters says something disparaging against a trademarked product, how likely is it that a company going to be able to argue that this fictional character's opinion would significantly influence consumers of said product? Unless your character develops some enormous cult following, I think you're safe.
I'm late to this party but I find this topic very interesting.
1) In regards to whether or not I use real names and products in my writing I do. As a reader I find it incredibly annoying when a writer actually goes out of their way to let you know what product their character is using by changing the name. It's probably just a pet peeve but I'm sure there are others like me. It actually can interrupt my reading. Your character is using FACEbook not FAKEbook. There are tons of examples of this that I don't need to list because we've all seen them. I really don't like it when authors do that.
I think sometimes authors get this idea that if they mention a certain product by name then they could get in trouble. It's already been pointed out that there ARE times when that COULD happen and certain countries where it could happen but most places a simple product mentioned by name doesn't violate any sort of trademark. You'd be hard pressed to be taken to court because you said your character was drinking a Dr. Pepper. Now if you called the name of your book or series "The Dr. Pepper Encounter" well then that may bring some issues.
I think some people look at movies and television as an example of not showing product names or changing them to be something generic. In some instances, for example a cooking show, they change the covers of products so they don't appear to be endorsing a certain product. It's not for a trademark issue. It's a money issue. The same goes for movies and any other entertainment medium. It's a money issue for them. In the case of a cooking show they don't want to endorse a certain product in case something happens with it. They don't want to be liable, but it's more than that. Movies and television are advertising opportunities. Why show your character riding away in a Chevrolet truck when Chevy will PAY you to make sure that their logo is shown for 3 seconds? It's money ... not trademark.
2) Certain phrases become very regional. For example if you are writing a story about the deep south and your character uses the word "Pop" to refer to a drink? Well your character better be a transplant because no southern born person I know calls it pop. We do use the word "soda" but a vast majority of us use the word "Coke" as a more generic term. For instance, if you come in to someone's home, they may ask you if you want "a coke". A typical response would be "Sure what do you have" at which point the host would say "I've got Coke, Dr. Pepper, sweet tea and Kool-Aid". Another example would be something like say "Pop-Tarts". It doesn't matter what brand you buy you're eating "Pop-Tarts" not "Toaster Pastries" or anything like that. It's a pop-tart. That's just what people say in the south. So there may be regional uses of product names that wouldn't make sense if you DIDN'T use them by name.
As a reader I find it incredibly annoying when a writer actually goes out of their way to let you know what product their character is using by changing the name. It's probably just a pet peeve but I'm sure there are others like me. It actually can interrupt my reading. Your character is using FACEbook not FAKEbook. There are tons of examples of this that I don't need to list because we've all seen them. I really don't like it when authors do that.
Here, you need to account for the nature of the story.
Is it far future science fiction, or an alternate reality? In either of those cases, something like Facebook might exist, but it might not actually be Facebook.
On the other hand if it's a realistic story set in a near present real world setting, and the author has a character using Facebook but goes out of his way to avoid calling it Facebook, yeah, that would be annoying.
On the other hand if it's a realistic story set in a near present real world setting, and the author has a character using Facebook but goes out of his way to avoid calling it Facebook, yeah, that would be annoying.
That's the instance I am talking about. I'm referring to books and/or scenes that are clearly set on earth in a particular era or timeline. If it's an alternate timeline then I, as a reader, can give some leniency depending on how you go about things.
For example, if you're in an alternate timeline it might not be called Facebook. It very well may be something entirely different. If that's the case though, put some effort into the naming process. Don't called it FakeBook or FateBook or some other thing where you change one letter. Come up with your own thing.
You are right though, context is everything and there are instances where something like this may be entirely appropriate, if for no other reason, comedy.