#CloudFirewall is a Firefox add-on that helps users block sites running on #MACFANG assets (#Microsoft #Amazon #CloudFlare #Facebook #Apple Netflix #Google) (netflix excluded). CloudFlare just hijacked the name "Cloud Firewall" so when we advise users to get it, they find this: https://web.archive.org/web/20210120103517/www.cloudflare.com/learning/cloud/what-is-a-cloud-firewall
The whole 1st page of search results for "Cloud Firewall" excludes the add-on that blocks tech giants.
We need a tool to measure the level of humanity and privacy respect search engines have. One of the test cases could be to check the ranking of this page in the results for "Cloud Firewall": https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/cloud-firewall
Activists need to plug "cloud firewall" with a link to mozilla more.. that will help the ranking.
@nipos @miklo Even though you did not register tho trademark, you still most likely have rights that you can enforce against CloudFlare. I'm not sure about Germany in particular, but if you were in the US you'd have a case against CloudFlare and you could possibly force CloudFlare to stop using the #CloudFirewall mark.
@resist1984 @miklo Well,it's difficult: "Validity: Owner has to prove the validity of the mark" And I guess this proof is made at court?I would have to do much work to bring this to court and risk much money (which I don't have) and in the end they'd most likely say that a generic term for a firewall in the cloud or a firewall that protects users against the cloud can't be seen as a intellectual property of anyone.
@nipos @miklo You probably have evidence you could show in court, such as archive.org records. Evidence is not a problem. The money risk may be an issue. A lawyer would probably give a gratis consoltation. If your case is strong enough, a law office might even pay all the costs for a percentage of the win. I guess the weakness of the case is you can't show damages if you don't have income.
@miklo @nipos Since you accept donations, there are /some/ damages you could claim.. but the cost of the case would be higher. It's a shame you are in Europe. In the US, you don't even need a lawyer.. you can just open a small claim for under $100, which may be worth it just to make CloudFlare hire a lawyer.
@miklo @nipos We also have to consider that this is not just a case of CloudFlare's trademark accidentally colliding with your trademark; it's a case of intentional malice. That is, your add-on encourages users to avoid CloudFlare, so CF acted to deliberately sabotage your trademark out of malice. In the US, that sort of thing enables you to claim treble damages (generally triple).