Another great question, as to whether Merck & Co. (US) might have simply made an innocent mistake, here -- from a new anonymous commenter, below -- let's take a look:

. . . .Anonymous said...
Isn't is possible that this really was just a mistake?

(a different anonymous)

November 30, 2011 12:39 AM

[I] said. . .

Thanks, Anon. No. 2 --

Clearly, as Facebook itself has admitted, Facebook made a mistake. On that, I think we might all agree.

But I am interested in how Facebook came to make that mistake -- how was it induced to do so?

Let us then make out the case most favorable to "mistake" -- on the part of Merck & Co. (US). Is it possible that no one at Merck US bothered to check whether the Facebook vanity page URL "www.facebook.com/Merck" was available, before (entirely innocently!) asking Facebook to open a page in Merck & Co. US's name? I guess that could have happened. . . .

But wouldn't it seem more likely that Facebook told Merck US that the page "already existed" -- Facebok, of course, assuming naively, and incorrectly, that Merck KGaA (Germany) was just an international affiliate of US Merck?

[Most people who hadn't recently read the 1919 Treaty of Versailles might have made the same assumption -- in fact no less an authority than the Wall Street Journal still occasionally does -- HAH! But we must assume that at US Merck's Corporate Communications Department, at least, it knows who it is -- and is NOT, right?]

In any event, wouldn't it also then seem likely that Merck US would simply say Oops! -- "we lost our passwords" -- or some such, and induce Facebook to reset the page, effectively "handing over the keys" to that address, to US Merck?

In sum, what I find hard to believe about this scenario (from US Merck's perspective) is that US Merck didn't even know that German Merck had the Vanity Facebook page address.

If Merck US did know about the German Merck vanity page, it becomes nearly impossible to imagine any set of statements that would be completely truthful -- and free from material omissions -- that would still result in Facebook handing over the keys to US Merck.

Certainly, Facebook (just as in the Salman Rushdie name case -- see link below) would require some evidence that Merck US and German Merck were essentially the same person before resetting the passwords, right?

I mean, think about it -- at almost same time, Facebook was very publicly handling the flap over Rushdie's own "pen" name. [In that case, Facebook required the submission of Rushdie's passport, among other things, before returning to him HIS OWN "PEN" NAME(!).]

Something similar must have been requested of Merck US. And short of a misstatement, the change wouldn't have occurred, in my estimation. That misstatement almost certainly came from Whitehouse Station (i.e., Merck US), in my estimation.

So -- yes, Facebook could very well have made a fairly innocent mistake (and has admitted as much).

If you can, though -- do lay out a plausible competing scenario -- one in which the second largest purveyor of drugs in the world is unaware of the German Merck's existence on Facebook, and is unaware of 92 years of its own confused history with that unaffiliated World War I reparations-seized-entity.

Remember, prior to the Summer of 2011, US Merck already had a page on Facebook -- just not a vanity URL address page. So too, did German Merck, but it ALSO had the vanity address page -- since 2010.

If you can convincingly spin me that tale, I'm all ears (and eyes)!

Thanks -- what a great question!

Namaste!

November 30, 2011 9:20 AM. . . .

I think this one is about done -- for now. Now we wait to see when the German Merck reappears as owner of the vanity URL at Facebook. As of this morning, no one owns it.

As I have repeastedly observed, it is puzzling that for more than nine decades, two of the largest multi-national public companies in the world (by revenue) haven't done more to "re-brand" their identities -- in ways which would help distinguish the one, from the other.

Now, it seems that a 21^st Century phenomenom will do it for them. Overnight, Facebook's administrators disabled the "/Merck" vanity URL -- citing the spat between Merck KGaA (Germany) and Merck & Co. (United States), as to which concern may properly claim the name -- and thus, the vanity URL on Facebook.

Facebook's rules here are clear:

. . . .5. Protecting Other People's Rights

We respect other people's rights, and expect you to do the same.

1.You will not post content or take any action on Facebook that infringes or violates someone else's rights or otherwise violates the law.

2. We can remove any content or information you post on Facebook if we believe that it violates this Statement. . . .

III. Application Content. . . .

B. Prohibited Content | You agree that you will not promote, or provide content referencing, facilitating, containing or using, the following. . .

2.Content that infringes upon the rights of any third party, including intellectual property rights, privacy, publicity, moral or other personal or proprietary right, or that is deceptive or fraudulent. . . .

C. Rights to Content

1.You must ensure that you own or have secured all rights necessary to copy, display, distribute, deliver, render and publicly perform all content of or within your application to Facebook users in all countries where you make the content available. . . .

It now seems pretty plain that US Merck didn't have those rights -- as to the "/Merck" vanity URL. Especially not if Merck US (allegedly) claim-jumped the right to the vanity URL, from the German entity. [There is essentially zero chance that Facebook spontaneously changed the passwords for Admin access (passwords originally granted only to Merck KGaA Germany), without some affirmative representations and showings (which, must have been, at least, less than completely truthful) from someone connected to Merck & Co. US, here -- let's be honest, now -- we all know how Facebook "support" is anything but.]

So -- given that Merck & Co. was just exactly one week ago telling the world about its newly renegotiated "Corporate Integrity Agreement" (after another DoJ plea deal -- costing $950 million of the stockholders' money, just this time -- and over $6 billion, overall!), it is time for Merck & Co. to immediately and voluntarily identify the employees or contractors involved in convincing Facebook's staffers to hand over the keys (either by omission of relevant information, or outright deceptive representations to said Facebook staffers) to Merck KGaA's vanity Facebook URL sometime back in October 2011.

While Merck US may well argue it has the right to the Merck name in various geographies, it can no longer credibly claim that it -- as an organization -- thinks its conduct in obtaining the vanity URL was lawful, vis-a-vis Merck KGaA's open, notorious (and most importantly) prior (since early 2010) rights to that URL. [Here recall that back then, in 2010, Merck & Co. (US) was largely forsaking social media applications, on regulatory entanglement concerns.] In short, it was shying away, at a time when German Merck was deciding to move forward, aggressively. Merck US cannot reclaim that lost ground, and especially not so now by (alleged) subterfuge.

It is time for CEO Frazier to act on his new transparency: Name the names, Mr. Frazier -- don't make Merck KGaA litigate in New York to get them.

Put this suddenly very-embarrassing matter to bed, now.