Trademarks are a useful tool when people try to do affinity scams or other things.

This is none of that. This is just abuse of the law (with most likely no legal basis either) to take down competitors.

I do not think having a not unique design makes it a good idea to send a false TRADEMARK violation claim. Apparently “BTClock” is infringing on the “blockclock” trademark

Okay so TL;DR

Coinkite makes blockclock mini and sells it for $400, closed source

nostr:npub1k5f85zx0xdskyayqpfpc0zq6n7vwqjuuxugkayk72fgynp34cs3qfcvqg2 makes a similar DIY device that is fully open source named BTClock

They get harassed at launch by Coinkite

It goes well for a while, then Coinkite takes down their Github by claiming trademark infringement because BTClock is too similar to Blockclock

Build a BTClock :)

Only if Coinkite didn’t make it harder to do so

I’m most likely going to be offering a SE chip for hardware wallets with specific features that allows building DIY designs on top of it and offers higher security than some of the common choices.

So, that could become easier too.

https://btclock.store is still up

fact

they posted it themselves in a Telegram channel initially

Was before Coinkite took it down with a trademark claim

nostr:npub15c88nc8d44gsp4658dnfu5fahswzzu8gaxm5lkuwjud068swdqfspxssvx how may I reach out on Telegram, Matrix or Signal?

they rely too much on their big margins

x.com -> xcancel.com

I do not agree fully with throwing it fully out, but current IP regulation means that it is easy to abuse.

Trademarks provide protection against someone pretending to be affiliated with you or your products.

I could have just used a JavaCard and been the same as other products already out there. But then what’s the point?

Big things are coming 👀

Resubmit with it added, I’ll remove it. Or if you used your nym it’s fine, just DM me your Telegram/Signal handle.

This all started because I was tired of the amount of bullshit and insecure products in the hardware wallet space.

Finally, you will be able to get an HWW that isn’t overpriced, that doesn’t use chips with vulnerabilities, and just works without requiring a closed source vendor app.

The SE will also be open to use in DIY projects or other HWWs as a secure starting point. nostr:note160ztxvvpvwn6lvxqlsdn0p492j9xa7lmhe2agfe4lwsjcfr7s7eq390zxq

They had to invest resources in firmware and hardware development too. The great part is you can make this in any form factor by forking the design and add any functions you want

My wording was a bit harsh too and I understand. But overall, this is a pretty disappointing move from Coinkite.

The full, unaltered text of the takedown notice is here:

nostr:nevent1qqspdafxqmzasft60ft6zfxs3nsm6vf3ka0pae43dg66sq2evjay8ygpp4mhxue69uhkummn9ekx7mqpzpmhxue69uhkummnw3ezumrpdejqzxrhwden5te0wfjkccte9ehx7umhdpjhyefwvdhk6qg4waehxw309a5xjum59ehx7um5wghxcctwvsk8nct3

Yes, the code is fully independent from anything Coinkite has made.

Coinkite Inc. is the developer of the "BLOCKCLOCK," a product featuring seven electronic ink digits that provide customizable cryptocurrency and blockchain information, including cryptocurrency price, volumes, exchange rates, current coin supply, block height, and Merkle root. Coinkite Inc owns the trademark "BLOCKCLOCK" (Registration No. 7237159) in Class 9 in the United States.

The infringer BTCLOCK identifies its product as "BTCLOCK". It is defined as “a block with electronic ink displays, which can show stuff related to Bitcoin”. The use of "BTCLOCK" has strong similarities, both in name and functionality, with Coinkite’s registered trademark "BLOCKCLOCK", as follows:

1) Phonetic similarity: "BTCLOCK" and "BLOCKCLOCK" sound very similar. Both emphasize the term "CLOCK," with "BT" and "Block" being the only differences. The phonetic similarity can cause confusion, leading consumers to mistakenly believe the two products are related or come from the same business origin.

2) Visual similarity: The appearance of "BTCLOCK" and "BLOCKCLOCK" is also quite similar. "BT" and "Block" both consist of short prefixes followed by "Clock", which could easily cause confusion at first glance. In addition, the use of seven screens with electronic ink to display Bitcoin information gives the same impression in the users. The word BTCLOCK is displayed in the same exact position that it is in the BLOCKCLOCK.

3) Same functionality: Both products are aimed at a similar audience - people interested in cryptocurrency, specifically Bitcoin. Since both products appear to perform a similar function (displaying cryptocurrency prices), there is a high likelihood of confusion. Consumers might believe the two products are from the Coinkite, which is not accurate.

4) Risk of confusion: Since both devices seem to have similar functionality (displaying Bitcoin prices), this increases the chances that consumers could be confused about their origin. They may think "BTCLOCK" is a version or a rebranding of Coinkite's "BLOCKCLOCK." If "BTCLOCK" becomes associated with a different company or quality, it could dilute the distinctiveness of Coinkite's "BLOCKCLOCK".

The use of "BTCLOCK" in GitHub could be infringing Coinkite’s trademark rights.

What would be the best solution for the alleged infringement? Are there specific changes the user can make other than removal? (e.g., transfer of trademarked username to an existing company account, removal of trademarked logo or references to company)

(1) Cease and desist the use of the words BTCLOCK, BLOCKCLOCK or similar words in the following websites: https://github.com/btclock; https://btclock.github.io/web-flasher/

(2) Remove any pictures, documents, links with the words BTCLOCK, BLOCKCLOCK or similar words from the following websites: https://github.com/btclock; https://btclock.github.io/web-flasher/

(3) Suspend and/or terminate the infringer's account BTClock.

The takedown claim solely focuses on the fact that thr BTClock and Blockclock are similar devices, and apparently them both having the word “Clock” and starting with “B” makes them too similar