resist1984 @resist1984@social.privacytools.io

@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).

@nipos @miklo I think the law and the evidence is on nipos' side, but it's a weak case just because the damages are low. Yet it wouldn't hurt to get a gratis consultation from a trademark lawyer if you can.

@miklo @nipos miklo, IMO he would potentially get more promotion of the plugin simply from the publicity of the lawsuit itself than he would get by fixing the search results.

@nipos @miklo You could do a small claim if you ever happen to visit California (and perhaps even include your travel costs in the lawsuit). But note that small claims has a limitation: the judge can only award money, the small claims judge can't force #CloudFlare to stop using the trademark.

@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.

@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 these pages: https://keydifferences.com/difference-between-registered-and-unregistered-trademark.html & https://web.archive.org/web/20210121220021/https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/what-good-unregistered-trademark.html might give a general idea

@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.

@miklo does #Nikisoft perhaps have a trademark case against CloudFlare, @nipos?

Activists need to plug "cloud firewall" with a link to mozilla more.. that will help the ranking.

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

The whole 1st page of search results for "Cloud Firewall" excludes the add-on that blocks tech giants.

#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

@zack that comparison table should really show the schedule differences, because that is one good reason to favor one over the other. J&J takes ~28 days to reach full protection; pFizer takes 21 days + 1 week; Moderna takes 28 days + 2 weeks.