@Fishou yes this is true, they are a startup without a product. But as I understand it that doesnt define a trademark. They have had the meta domain since 2014 and presumably registered a trademark around that time. So even if they havent released their product yet I would imagine in the eyes of the law they are still in a good place to challenge it.
@freemo could be, but their only page, so the first of their template, linking to a facebook account, with a name implying said account only exists because of this potential trademark issue, is highly suspicious.
onyl snapshot prior of the site I could find was 2018, and was a 404 error, so they didn't use the domain before either, possibly keeping it just in case, but seems very strange to me, oh well… Cybersquatting that much in advance sounds quite unlikely in itself, we will see I guess.
@Fishou How is that suspicious? I mean its obvious that the company hadnt lauched yet and is in a startup state, perhaps a startup where the owner is the only employee. Why would that make it suspicious that they own the trademark, considering they had the site since 2014 at least.
A company of 1 is still a company in the eyes of the law.
QOTO: Question Others to Teach Ourselves. A STEM-oriented instance.
An inclusive free speech instance.
All cultures and opinions welcome.
Explicit hate speech and harassment strictly forbidden.
We federate with all servers: we don't block any servers.