NVK clearly indicates the trademark he is protecting is for "blockclock" by boosting the following post.

nostr:nevent1qqswwmne35jhxy8nz930xyeks00nua4lesd6lxcecw50ueewkw0pz9gpzemhxue69uhhyetvv9ujumt0wd68ytnsw43z7q3qrvqzg0lsgsnnmrjxelt44vml99gul28mverm80ht4wad5cjmdesqxpqqqqqqzp6fk3v

NVK implies he is using his trademark claim to protect his sales of his luxury-priced BLOCKCLOCK. This does not appear to be a valid a trademark or copyright claim.

nostr:nevent1qqswl8cft39yyg49wn9yvkj953x2cz568r4vu8mhfjuru4pyyevs0wgpz9mhxue69uhkummnw3ezuamfdejj7q3qaz9xj85cmxv8e9j9y80lvqp97crsqdu2fpu3srwthd99qfu9qsgsxpqqqqqqzftp2fp

nostr:nevent1qqs079xdzd9ga5r8ntc6fr845dv7qyqygnrwzz4xx44my5vyy2ehtdcpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumt0d5hsyg8g3f53axxenp7fv3fpmlmqqf0kquqr0zjg0yvqmjamffgz0pgyzypsgqqqqqqskazk3s

This can be publically resolved with the simple gesture of publishing the actual takedown request sent to github. If NVK holds a trademark for BTCclock, then he has a positive legal right established in law by means of the monopoly of the use of force and people with guns and cages. If NVK only holds a trademark for BLOCKCLOCK, and he does not publish the takedown request, then we can assume he is standing behind the 5th amendment.

Reply to this note

Please Login to reply.

Discussion

No replies yet.