Oddbean

While I sympathize with the argument that trademark law requires enforcement, Blockclock is such a generic name that a trademark should have never been issued. Equally, displaying Bitcoin data like block height on a screen is an obvious idea that certainly doesn't deserve protection. Notably, the term "btcclock" was coined 7 years ago by rcassata, for essentially the same idea: https://github.com/eternitywall/btcclock There's nothing wrong with another project choosing to use that generic name for yet another implementation of the same idea. Coinkite should do the right thing here and withdraw their takedown. nostr:nevent1qqst22qclvkw7p8fqhcukrcc6m8unjh0ppp72t9heq8gf89eeu82qagpr4mhxue69uhkummnw3ezucnfw33k76twv4ezuum0vd5kzmp0qgst2yn6pr8nxctzwjqq5su83qdflx8qfwwrwytwjt09y5zfsc6uggsrqsqqqqqp2zhuww

NVK's claim that I read was that someone was infringing on the specific trademark blockclock. Trademark does not cover a process, nor a copyright. It appears that BTCclock created a competing product with original authorship. He mentions that he didn't reverse engineer a blockclock, but even if he did, that's perfectly legal within the DMCA. Copyright and trademark do not protect the duplication of an idea. So either I misread NVK's statement that his actual trademark was being infringed upon and he implied that that trademark was specifically "blockclock", or he is not acting in good faith.

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.

Sure thing. BLOCKCLOCK IS SUCH A GENERIC NAME THAT A TRADEMARK SHOULD HAVE NEVER BEEN ISSUED 𝙱𝙻𝙾𝙲𝙺𝙲𝙻𝙾𝙲𝙺 𝙸𝚂 𝚂𝚄𝙲𝙷 𝙰 𝙶𝙴𝙽𝙴𝚁𝙸𝙲 𝙽𝙰𝙼𝙴 𝚃𝙷𝙰𝚃 𝙰 𝚃𝚁𝙰𝙳𝙴𝙼𝙰𝚁𝙺 𝚂𝙷𝙾𝚄𝙻𝙳 𝙷𝙰𝚅𝙴 𝙽𝙴𝚅𝙴𝚁 𝙱𝙴𝙴𝙽 𝙸𝚂𝚂𝚄𝙴𝙳 ＢＬＯＣＫＣＬＯＣＫＩＳＳＵＣＨＡＧＥＮＥＲＩＣＮＡＭＥＴＨＡＴＡＴＲＡＤＥＭＡＲＫＳＨＯＵＬＤＨＡＶＥＮＥＶＥＲＢＥＥＮＩＳＳＵＥＤ 𝕭𝕷𝕺𝕮𝕶𝕮𝕷𝕺𝕮𝕶 𝕴𝕾 𝕾𝖀𝕮𝕳 𝕬 𝕲𝕰𝕹𝕰𝕽𝕴𝕮 𝕹𝕬𝕸𝕰 𝕿𝕳𝕬𝕿 𝕬 𝕿𝕽𝕬𝕯𝕰𝕸𝕬𝕽𝕶 𝕾𝕳𝕺𝖀𝕷𝕯 𝕳𝕬𝖁𝕰 𝕹𝕰𝖁𝕰𝕽 𝕭𝕰𝕰𝕹 𝕴𝕾𝕾𝖀𝕰𝕯

IIRC if: 1. company A doesn't file a trademark; and later 2. company B does Then company B needs to fight the trademark of company A. Or they wait for company B to strike and defend themselves based on prior art. But that won't do you much good once Github / Amazon took down your stuff, and they won't act unless you show them your trademark or proof that the other trademark rejected. Or you have to take Microsoft / Amazon to court yourself. So it's better to get the trademark preemptively. I'm not sure if you then also need to enforce it consistently against others, if you only got the trademark for defensive purposes like the scenario above.

I might also be possible to not file a trademark yourself, but aggressively monitor and fight any attempt by others. But that seems like more work than just filing it yourself. And if you miss one, you're probably at a disadvantage.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Like I said, trademark law is a enforce it or lose it thing: you have to stop people from infringing on your trademark or you can lose it. However in this case, we clearly have a situation where a trademark was issued for a generic term: Coinkite is threatening someone for using a name, btcclock, that Ricardo Cassata came up with _7_ years ago for the same concept, long before the Blockclock even existed. Coinkite chose to try to enforce their trademark broadly when they, at minimum, could have accepted that their trademark should apply narrowly given the fact that it is pretty generic. If the defendant was calling their project a "Blockclock" this situation would be more reasonable. They're not. They're using a different name.

Nothing forces you to apply for a trademark. You can just accept that people may use the term "blockclock" to talk about block clocks. Coinkite is also a trademarked term, and it's a distinctive one that I have no issue with. They can just call their product a Coinkite Blockclock and everything would be fine. Anyway, this is irrelevant here: the competition they're threatening used the term BTClock. Which ironically is arguably _more_ distinctive than Blockclock due to the distinct spelling.

Incidentally, if you actually search the Canadian trademark databases you'll see there's four Blockclock trademarks filed, for both the name and the logo; the logo is distinctly different from the BTClock. Though it's still very generic. Just seven white boxes on a black background. Reminds me of how Apple tried to get a design patent on the black rectangle phone design...

> You can just accept that people may use the term "blockclock" to talk about block clocks. That doesn't work if an adversarial company files the trademark instead. An evil version of Djuri could have taken down Coinkite's Github and hosting that way. If he had trademarked BTCClock and there no Blockclock trademark already. The only defense against such an attack is already having a trademark, because that is the only way you're going to quickly and successfully appeal a takedown.

That's not how trademarks work. Previously having used a conflicting trademark is a defense. There's a long list of examples of big companies trying to use their trademarks against pre-existing users and failing.

I think you're talking about how they work in the court system. Unfortunately much of the world is run by the kangaroo courts of Google, Apple, Microsoft and Amazon which have very different rules. E.g. on the topic copyright, having obviously written a book yourself is not enough evidence to get it listed. Once their black box system flags something, you're fucked unless you take them to court or unless you can give them the piece of paper they want. https://sprovoost.nl/2022/06/01/amazon-and-the-dystopian-future-of-book-censorship/

I think you are confusing trademark with patent. Trademarks are names or stylistic art providing distinctiveness to a business, such as a logo with or without the trade name. The shape or orientation of components of the block-clock don't qualify as a trademark whatsoever. If you trademarked blockclock and not btcclock, you are SOL. If anything NVK's concern falls under copyright, and copyright only protects actual artwork such as the specific design, exact dimensions, shape and color of the blockclock. All three are in the category of intellectual property under US federal statutes, but trademark is specific to allowing a company to protect an identifying mark they use to distinguish their product or business activity. NVK's beef appears to be that someone else made a cheaper blockclock, called it something else and didn't infringe on any of his intellectual property whatsoever, so unless he can prove otherwise he can cry harder for all I care.

https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=90900261&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseType=DEFAULT&searchType=statusSearch Broadly describing your product in your trademark registration doesn't mean you can prevent competitors from making a similar product under a different name