@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.
@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.
@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.