Not Wise: French T-Shirt Company Tries To Trademark Anonymous Logo
from the this-will-not-end-well dept
Via Asher Wolf, we learn that a French company by the name of Early Flicker, who appears to focus on making and selling pop-culture referencing t-shirts, has applied for a trademark on Anonymous’ logo and slogan (pdf and embedded below).
This does not seem wise.
If you look around, there are others selling Anonymous apparel, but trying to trademark the logo, and limit its use by others isn’t just playing with fire, it’s directly taunting a large group of people with weapons that shoot fire… and who have little hesitation in using them.
Filed Under: anonymous, france, logo, t-shirts, trademark
Companies: early flicker
Comments on “Not Wise: French T-Shirt Company Tries To Trademark Anonymous Logo”
Good luck with that.
That’s right, Pirate Mike! Don’t mess with the internet, asshole! Pirate Mike and his gang will make you pay. Mike is salivating at the thought of what will happen. OMG, you can see the excitement. Good job, Pirate Mike. You really hit home with this one. The nerve! OMG, I’m getting goosebumps thinking about the reaction. I bet you have your Low Orbit Ion Cannon warmed up, right, Pirate Mike? Great, great hard-hitting stuff. So excited! Send me the cat signal and I’ll start violating the shit out of this guy’s rights. See you on the battlefield, bro!
Re: Re:
It is my sincere understanding that there are medications that can help you.
Re: Re: Re:
Human medical technology is not yet advanced enough, sadly.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Who said anything about human.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m not sure we’re capable of curing brain death yet.
I also think his post is likely a parody.
Re: Re:
Shouldn’t you be up in arms about how this French company is pirating other people’s work?
Re: Re: Re:
No, we should be “up in arms” on the legality of trademarking ………while they’re at it, might aswell take a look at copyright, patents and monopolies.
Re: Re: Re: No in this case the utter stupidity of it
It’s kinda like walking into as pride of sleeping lions and randomly tugging tails real hard. The tshirts can’t be in homage of Anonymous or they would have just run them off like everyone else does.
I’m waiting for a tshirt maker’s web site to get blasted in the foreseeable future.
Re: Re: Re:
That would be rational.
Re: FOAD, asshole.
ibid.
Re: Re:
Anonymous is not a Mike thing, it’s an anon thing.
Which is why this is a bad idea. Plus I’d think you’d side with anonymous against this company since it’s “theft” of their stuff.
Re: Re: Re:
No, he would not side with Anonymous because they are not the people he works for.
Re: Re: Re:
It’s not much more of a stretch for them than Google being the representative for the entire internet.
Re: Re: Re:
Anon can just aim “evidence” towards other people…that’s happened before and UK police arrested people who tweeted they hated anonymous but had zero to do with them.
Be kinda funny if the “evidence” of anon’s attack pointed at the head of the RIAA/MPAA……..just sayin’
Re: Re:
your next.
Re: Re: Re:
my next what?
Re: Re:
…Tara Carreon? Is that you?
Re: Re:
You sound suspiciously like a certain crazy lady married to a certain lawyer whose name rhymes with “carry-on”.
Re: Re:
Things must be slow on AOL today.
Re: Re:
Oh the delicious irony of an Anonymous Coward attacking Mike about a post about Anonymous.
And me… Another Anonymous bringing it up… Wait…
Is this… Inception?
Re: Re: Re:
trademark infringement!
Re: Re:
Oh Gee, you mean that “Pirate Mike” is really “Anonymous Mike”?
How utterly horrible!
I guess that means we freetards have been aiding aiding and abetting the Anonymous terrorists? Oh, we really are gullible aren’t we?
It’s terrible and we should all do penance now before the bronze cow idols of the RIAA and MPAA. Immediately and without fail!
/sarc off
Re: Re: Re:
So an anonymous pirate wears patches over BOTH eyes then? 🙂
Re: Re:
You’re in here defending would-be IP “thieves”?
The image is not the IP of the company trying to steal it’s associated use/licensing rights by abusing legal tools. They did not design it, commission it, or buy any special rights over it from the rightful IP copymonopoly holder.
So now you support copying stuff that someone else holds a copymonopoly over, and actually depriving the rightful copymonopoly holder of their rights. That’s not just using without permission, that’s depriving the original owner of the use and of their licensing perogatives.
Most IP violations are not actually theft, but this instance has all the qualifying characteristics of actual theft. Unlawful appropriation depriving the rightful possesser/user/licensee of their prvileges and perogatives in the asset. That’s theft and you’re in here cheer leading for it.
Your mother must be so proud.
Re: Re: Re:
Did you actually read the article, or did you just come here, fingers in ears, eyes firmly shut, chanting “lalalalalala” over and over, typing with your nose, to spew your irrelevant criticism of something that didn’t happen?
What could possibly go wrong?
Re: Re:
I’m pretty sure Chuck Norris will be involved somehow.
Re: Re:
What could possibly go right?
The headline I expect to see
ebay France is cratered.
perhaps leaving a message on the company’s computers saying exactly what is in the logo would be sufficient to make them rethink this ‘asking for trouble’ move?
To paraphrase Jim Croce:
You don’t pull on Superman’s cape.
You don’t spit into the wind.
You don’t pull the mask of the old Lone Ranger,
and you don’t mess around with Anon.
Not A Big Deal
They’ll surrender to Anonymous. Good old reliable France.
Pshaw
Masnick.
You’re such a pessimist.
What could go wrong?
Re: Pshaw
I went for Chuck Norris up there but here I’ll go with a Lolcat Army heavily armed with LOICs.
Re: Pshaw
from my point of view? absolutely nothing could go wrong. its going to wind up being better entertainment than WB or paramount could EVER put out.
Re: Re: Pshaw
Actually, that’s a fantastic idea. There has to be some kind of spy-thriller-drama blockbuster in this story!
Re: Re: Re: Pshaw
In fact, I’m becoming very tempted to write the screenplay (or at least a short story on which to build the screenplay) myself…
Re: Re: Pshaw
You’re not setting the bar that high are you? 🙂
Ya know it just occoured to me that if was tasked with taking down annomous and I belived I could trace the DDOS attacks back to their sources I’d set up some bait that’d be gaurnteed to be hit. Just a thought. But then again alot of people are just stupid enough to think doing this kind of thing has no consquenses.
Re: Re:
You’re adorable.
Popcorn time...
This looks like a good time to grab some popcorn and then sit back and watch the show. This will be amusing.
Re: Popcorn time...
I can think of at least one company who will soon disagree.
Share the popcorn?
Re: Re: Popcorn time...
Unauthorized popcorn eating out side Movie theaters is what is driving down Theater attendance. (Pay no attention to the fact that Good Movies now do Crazy Well and Bad movies do little if any, it is directly linked to unauthorized popcorn consumption).
Re: Re: Re: Popcorn time...
But if people didn’t pirate and tell their friends that movies suck we could still trick them into going by spending millions on advertising. Respect my right to sell shit to people because they don’t know if it is good or not until they have paid.
Re: Re: Re:2 Popcorn time...
Actually if I recall correctly the movie industry a couple of years ago pointed the finger at smart phones for the drop of ticket sales. People had the audacity to tell their friends the movie sucked the instance they got out from the movie.
People should obviously not be allowed to review movies the first week after release.
Think of the poor artist, the children and above all the movie industry!
Re: Re: Re:3 Popcorn time...
What would be awesome is to get a bunch of maybe 300 friends together who have similiar likes/dislikes.
Then for each movie, ONE person goes to see it, and the others refuse to go if they think its crap then someone else takes a turn for…..oh wait people are doing that already?
Damn now I can’t copyright/patent and trademark the concep….oh wait yes I can, thank god for retarded IP laws……..
Re: Popcorn time...
Not a very bright idea of this Company !!!
They’re french, they’ll give up soon enough
Re: Re:
or at least, the colours will run.
It’s not so much as the logo that’s worrisome. It’s the fact that they are using the phrase: “we are legion” ad naseum that’s troublesome since that is anonymous’ catchphrase.
I suspect lawsuits will be filed against this French company as well as cyber attacks on any websites run by this company as well as any that are associated with this company.
The only thing that “Early Flicker” managed to do was paint a big fat red bullseye target on its back. Now, just sit back and watch the fireworks begin. This should be interesting and quite entertaining.
Re: Re:
And this type of attitude is precisely what most that follow the Anonymous ideology despise. Fireworks indeed. And nyan cats.
Re: Re: Re:
Nyan~
Re: Re:
That’s precisely the attitude that ppl who follow the Anonymous ideology (me included) despise. I expect fireworks and nyan cats.
Re: Re:
Lawsuits? Because we all know how well Anonymous trusts governments in general.
Re: Re: Re:
But isn’t Early Flicker really a fundraising arm of Anonymous??????
Re: Re:
It is a smart move for “Early Flicker”. Imagine the publicity they are getting out of this. Sure, a bunch of hackers makes it harder for them on the internet, but the commercial value of this will probably be worth so much more in the long run.
Re: Re:
I’m struggling with the concept of Anonymous filing a lawsuit…
Re: Re: Re:
At this moment you may have given Anonymous an idea about certain phrases to use on the web site when they, ahhhhhh, inspect it for vulnerabilities.
Re: Re: Re:
just hijack an existing lawsuit and change the wording on the court servers……………….
You would think they would have applied for the logo in French.
No it's brilliant
I see this as a brilliant piece of “reverse Streisand effect” marketing: if Anonymous, (either “the real” or a copycat) performs a significant attack on them they will get publicity, and they are probably prepared to deal with the actual effects of the attack. In business it is usually better to be hated than be unknown.
There is also a good chance Anonymous may just ignore them, although other t-shirt makers or whatever will be subject to action. I wouldn’t be surprised if they have an agreement with the government and/or copyright organizations etc.. Trademark infringement would be useful tool to add on to any prosecution of the Anonymous Freedom Fighters.
Re: No it's brilliant
and they are probably prepared to deal with the actual effects of the attack.
I’m willing to bet they’re not.
Remember HBGary? You really think a t-shirt maker is better prepared than a professional security outfit?
Am I the only one that sees this as a way of trying to uncover “who” anonymous is? You can’t defend yourself in court “anonymously”. As soon as someone comes out and says they represent anonymous, the handcuffs are going on them faster than a jackrabbit on speed.
Re: Re:
Which is why this battle won’t be fought in any court, but will likely be an internet firestorm that will drive this company — screaming, crying, writhing in cyber-pain and begging for the sweet release of death — out of their mercy.
I’m not a fan of most of Anonymous’ methods personally, but I’m also not a big fan of how bears tear people who piss them off apart. As it turns out, I don’t throw fire at the bear.
Re: Re: Re:
Duh. “…out of their mercy” should read “…out of business”.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
I was thinking more “Out of there, merci!” m’self.
Re: Re: Re:2 Re:
In Quebec and Acadian French the correct response to Early Flicker, would be mange le merde. Loosely translated to English it’s “eat shit”. 🙂
Re: Re:
There are always the “doxed” anons, the ones whose identity is already known, to serve as the front on court actions and other things which can dox people. So no, that does not work.
Re: Re:
I don’t think what you said is true. I remember Mike reporting before on the EFF defending people who were going to be sued by bittorent lawyer trolls, who wanted to stay anonymous. IIRC, the court appointed the EFF to defend these people, since if they showed up in court to protect their anonymity, well, it would defeat the purpose!
Re: Re: Re:
It was EFF and Public Citizen appointed by the Judge to the case. It was only after one of the targeted Does found out he already had a lawyer and contacted them that Evan Stones violation of the courts order came out.
Re: Re:
You think Anonymous will use court action… this is where your idea goes wrong.
Anonymous will most likely politely ask they drop the trademark application.
From there the company will find the internet a very hostile place for them.
Re: Re: Re:
I’m not sure the wiser ones would even ask them to drop the trademark application. At its core Anonymous is an ideology, and this company just gave the ideology a lot of free press.
Because while the truncheon may be used in lieu of conversation, words will always retain their power. Words offer the means to meaning and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
The ideology is we are all Anonymous, and Early Flicker wants to do some horrible things. They want to mass market it, and reap the benefits.
They are not selling the identity, they are selling the wacky idea that you can wear this and be like the cool kids. Like Che t-shirts.
“There’s something about that man in the photo, the Cuban revolutionary with the serious eyes, scruffy beard and dark beret. Ernesto “Che” Guevara is adored. He is loathed. Dead for nearly 40 years, he is everywhere – as much a cultural icon as James Dean or Marilyn Monroe, perhaps even more so among a new generation of admirers who’ve helped turn a devout Marxist into a capitalist commodity.”
? Martha Irvine, The Washington Post
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Che_Guevara_in_popular_culture#In_advertising
Anyone can take up the mantle of Anonymous, but it takes a moron to think you can take the mantle and turn it into IP you control. They think because Anonymous isn’t a “group” that no one will stand against them, and it is very possible no one will protest the trademark application in the legal sense.
I await the response, I do believe the lulz to follow will be legendary.
Re: Er, no
That would have made sense, except for the fact that the parties most likely to challenge this in court are… competing T-shirt companies who want their (just as rightful) share of the pie (with no actual connection with Anonymous).
Re: Re:
It’s sad that after all this time, people on Techdirt still don’t understand what Anonymous is.
Re: Re:
In court? Funny.
*slow golf clap*
(bah hit enter instead of tab before)
I would like to congratulate Early Flicker on their recent decision to hire Paul Christoforo and Ocean Marketing to handle their PR decisions.
I am sure they have already retained Charles Carreon to defend them in court from the internet and a distributed reputation attack.
In the meantime, someone pass the popcorn and lower the blast shield…
Not to mention a group of people that aren’t too fond about IP abuse.
Seen that before
I have seen that kind of attitude before. Some dude trademarked “Linux”, and went asking for royalties from the Linux distributions.
In the end, the Linux community managed to get the trademark reassigned to who should be its rightful owner (Linus Torvalds, the creator of Linux). Wikipedia article.
I hope they do not realize their mistake as the revenge hits for this will be hilarious. Not only are they bothering anonymous but they are trademarking popular culture which will irritate a wide spectrum of people.
It doesn’t take someone representing anonymous, just someone credibly claiming to have created the graphic who didn’t commit any crimes.
Ooh. Paint a target on your chest, stand in a live-fire zone, call the local armed forces and DARE them to do something about it.
Your chances are actually better. Armed forces generally have at least a modicum of discipline and some have rules about killing people unnecessarily.
I need popcorn. LOTS of popcorn.
Their lawyer must have picked up the ‘Leave It the Fuck Alone’ pile by accident.
Methinks someone is about to unleash zee power of zee internets on some clueless french connards.
Why didn’t the DOJ think of doing this? It sure would have been cheaper than sending SWAT teams all over the globe.
Sounds like a Bugs Bunny routine
“You don’t have to shoot me later….SHOOT ME NOW, SHOOT ME NOW!”
I think this is rather a good example of why Trademark law is bullshit. A company steps into a market with a bunch of other companies and seeks to make a common logo and phrase a personal possession. There is no way that this trademark should be granted.
Well that’s dumb.
Legion is listening.
Re: Re:
Legion, thou shalt be cast into a herd of cliff-diving swine.
Re: Re: Re:
Bwee! Bwee! Bukee!
(Swine is an offensive term! We perfer porcine-americans)
Re: Re:
Coulda swore you ended up fried on Rannoch a while back…
Re: Re: Re:
Not Rannoch, dude, it was called Ranchi…oops…
Well, they can trademark Anonymous. Then I’ll trademark Coward. Then we can merge and make lots and lots of money. Yeah, that’s the ticket.
I reckon a t-shirt company should go on kick starter and ask for funds to make a similar anon t-shirt, no trademarking.
I can imagine the stupid grin on my face, seeing people wearing that t-shirt, protesting, the legality of trademarking
Raise your cups fellas, here’s to that non existent t-shirt company
To paraphrase Stephen Colbert:
Anonymous is a hornet’s nest, and Early Flicker just stuck their penis in it.
Original quote found here.
Holy shit these guys have balls that clank rofl!
I would seriously rather go up to a cop and throw shit on them.
I would rather stick a cactus up my pee hole.
I would rather do time in Gitmo.
I would rather share a cell with Charles Manson.
I would rather fight Super Megadeath Christ.
I would rather crash a Neo Nazi party and accuse them all of being closet homosexuals.
I would rather stomp on the Hells Angels colors.
I would rather roshambo with a NFL kicker.
I would rather stick a fork in my toaster.
I would rather eat homemade yellow snow cones in December.
I would rather travel to North Korea and take a shit on dear leaders statue.
I would rather pass a kidney stone the size of a baseball.
I would rather try to cross from Mexico to the USA with 30keys of Columbia’s best taped outside my clothes.
I would rather be raped with a chainsaw.
Re: Re:
ACCUSE neo-nazi’s of being closet homosexuals? you’d need to pry them apart from each others asses with a crowbar first……..
I eat yellow snow cones….mmmm lemon 🙂
You don’t need to go to North korea…buy a Kim Jong Il statue from amazon and shit on it from the comfort of your own home!
As for crossing the border with Columbia’s best are you referring to strapping yourself up with VHS tapes of the Care bears Movie and Mall Cop? because I’ll shoot you myself before you get 3 feet outside Mexico City…..
This has to be some sort of brilliant marketing stunt. No one can be stupid enough to taunt Anon.
Re: Re:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZJwSjor4hM
you were saying?
Re: Re: Re:
Ahhh Topiary.
That guy was funny.
Re: Re:
Oh and whats his nuts that managed to destroy HBGary Federal with his plans for outing Anonymous.
He went and taunted them to get hype… I think it might have gone poorly for him.
Obviously Anon owns this company and wants to merchandise… Duh.
frogeaters are such idiots
Oh yes, the children will get angry and they will… DDoS your t-shirt printing machine. Wait, they can’t.
Give them the finger, that’s all Anonymous deserves.
Re: Re:
You’re operating on the mistaken assumption that the DDoS is the only tool in Anonymous’ disposal. It is not. That is not, for instance, how ACTA was stopped.
Re: Re: Re:
yeah, right. Anonymous stopped ACTA. Did they also jump tall buildings in a single bound?
Come off it.
The real bullshit of anonymous is any moron with an axe to grind these days slaps on a Fawkes mask and claims to be anonymous. It’s easier than standing up with your own name in front of the public and saying “I, Bob Smith, oppose this bill”.
Anonymous doesn’t do much except keep the 4chan kiddies happy and provide cannon fodder for real hackers.
Re: Re: Re: missing the point.
Once again, you miss the point. My point was not that Anomymous single-handedly stopped ACTA. They didn’t. My point was that ACTA was stopped by actual massive real life protests, of which Anonymous were a part. Not the whole, but a part. Anybody who thinks otherwise is kidding themselves. As proof, I offer this as evidence. And this. And this. And this. There’s TONS more where that came from. Really, all I had to type was “Anonymous ACTA protest” and find so many images.
If you deny that anonymous does street protests, I could show you a lot more images. But you know what they say about arguing on the internet…
Re: Re: Re: One more thing.
It’s really hard to take this argument seriously from an Anonymous Coward. Yes, I know it’s an Ad Hominem Tu Quoque argument, but still.
Re: Re: Re: Re:
and make the RIAA weep bitter tears of frustration….yay!
Re: On another note.
On another note, it’s ironic that you’re mocking Anonymous while posting as an Anonymous coward.
Re: Re: On another note.
I find this hilarious.
Re: Re: Re: On another note.
Yeah, it’s real funny. I am sure your driver’s license (if you are old enough to have one) has “Watchit” as the name, right?
When it comes time to vote, when it comes time to pay taxes, when it comes time to do jury duty… they have my name and I am not afraid to use it. Here? Why bother? Anonymous will just hack and steal it, so why bother?
Re: Re: Re:2
I filled in this form for you and sent it to Barrett Brown.
Re: Re:
umadbro?
Re: Re:
You totally missed the point. Anonymous is an ideology and you are treating it as some entity composed of some DDoS kids. Speaks volumes of your ignorance and the conversation you had with Samuel further proves that point. DDoS is one of the faces of Anonymous. Occupy Wall Street and its derivatives is another. The SOPA/PIPA protests were another. The ACTA protests were similar but yet another. 15M in Spain was another. Egypt. I can go on.
Re: Re: Re:
I do find it amazingly telling that when they are scared they tell everyone they are just DDOS skiddies, but when they want to trample your civil rights a little bit more in the name of safety they are suddenly masters of the universe who with a thought can cause planes to collide with each other and nuclear plants to go boom.
Is it bad that the only people dumb enough to screw with nuclear things are the same people saying Anons are bad?
On the other hand
It could be a way to attract attention. Not only will it attract attention for being a stupid patent on a graphic that they did not create, but for any resulting onslaught from the internet hate machine.
so, dont mess with them cause they may attacke you, so you say give in to terroists then, since they ‘may” hurt you as well??? just bend over and take it huh?? mike??
screw them, trademark it and sue them to oblivion, hunt down those terroists and kill or jail them
Re: You haven't really thought this through...
Because nothing stops an ideology by creating martyrs, amirite?
Re: One more thing.
HBGary tried to do what you said, but they got burned. BIG TIME. What you are suggesting is tantamount to not attacking a bear being equivalent to giving in to its demands. Your logic is weaksauce.
Re: Re: One more thing.
Let’s imagine Anonymous is a bear.
HBGary is a small girl lost in the woods.
Ignoring the bear won’t work, because the little girl just wrote a massive thesis (using tree bark) on how she planned to disguise herself as a bear, sneak into the bears cave and skin any cubs she could find and sell the fresh, dripping skins to the local woodsman.
The bear being smarter than the average – and also apparently able to read (suspension of disbelief is a wonderful thing) decided to beat the head of the little girl into mush before she could carry out her dastardly plan…….
Re: Re:
Terrorists have an agenda. They generally have something like ‘do this/stop doing this or we’ll blow shit up’ going on. The consequences of giving in to terrorists tends to be more terrorists making demands.
Anonymous? Not so much.
Anonymous don’t threaten. You start doing something they don’t like, they don’t say ‘stop that shit or we’ll attack’, like, say, a terrorist would. That implies a level of organizational control that they clearly don’t have. They just attack, using whatever seems like a good idea or whatever will get the most laughs.
There is no intent, no logic, no consistency, and your only defence is avoiding their attention. There are no consequences to leaving them the hell alone and plenty of consequences to annoying them like this. The worst part of it is that the more you dig in and try to go after them, the more attention you draw and the more Anons get involved – as if poking a bear with a stick makes it harder to kill as well as angry enough to rip your head off.
Anyway – that whole ‘hunting down terrorists’ strategy seems to be doing a pretty good job of making lots more terrorists, so maybe you shouldn’t be recommending it as a solution here.
Re: Re: Re:
Terrorists have an agenda. They generally have something like ‘do this/stop doing this or we’ll blow shit up’ going on. The consequences of giving in to terrorists tends to be more terrorists making demands.
Anonymous? Not so much.
Anonymous don’t threaten. You start doing something they don’t like, they don’t say ‘stop that shit or we’ll attack’, like, say, a terrorist would.
Anonymous does threaten, search for their announcements to Early Flicker, Sony, and the University of Pittsburgh. They also state they will not attack or that they will cease an attack if the target complies with their demands.
That implies a level of organizational control that they clearly don’t have.
They are a self-described collective, they do not want to be an organization.
They just attack, using whatever seems like a good idea or whatever will get the most laughs.
Anonymous follows the same methodologies used by IT Security penetration testers; gather info on the target, select tools based on info gathering, probe for vulnerabilities, exploit vulnerabilities found. This is far from “whatever seems like a good idea”.
There is no intent, no logic, no consistency
Their intent is to either force compliance from the target or harm it (expose data, harass individuals, disrupt operations). There is logic involved. They have consistently accomplished their stated goals.
your only defence is avoiding their attention. There are no consequences to leaving them the hell alone
They select targets they believe have committed some wrong, they do not select targets at random. They also clearly state the wrong-doing they believe has occurred. The consequence to leaving them alone is that you will not be targeted.
The worst part of it is that the more you dig in and try to go after them, the more attention you draw and the more Anons get involved – as if poking a bear with a stick makes it harder to kill as well as angry enough to rip your head off.
See the Arrests section of the Wikipedia page on Anonymous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymous_(group)
Re: Re:
Terrorists. Really?
Lets examine whats wrong with your perception of reality shall we?
Why did the “terrorists” your comparing to Anons attack the US. Oh might have something to do with the US deciding they knew what was best for other people and forcing their will and morals onto them.
This was not a short term cause and effect, but when you shit on someone long enough they tend to get angry.
Had the US handled situations better, there might never have been an attack.
Terrorists and giving into them.
Funny you should mention that given the US laws passed to keep some religious groups from bombing and terrorizing women seeking medical care.
So oh great and wise mind, what is Anonymous’s bodycount to qualify them as terrorists? How many buildings have they destroyed? How many people maimed?
Seriously not a good idea! :D
This is SO like beaming down into the middle of a Klingon battlefield wearing a red-shirt with a big bullseye on it! LOL
united hackers assoication
i think its time to yeach the french the reason that “Anonymous” belongs to all mankind and is public domain , not some corporate crap.
Perhaps we need to up the pressure to include the french govt , and all companies that are bound inside france….
you want a cyber war you will get one , on this i side with Anonymous and will defend the rights of the planet earth to use “Anonymous”.
SEEMS someone wants to stir up the pot as they say.
I have a birthday and wake up to this bullcrap.
TO the french :
GO read mentors last words , if you require a french translation no problemo ill do that. Cease and decist lest this go real bad and out of hand. IT will not be tolerated.
WE in the uha are not script kiddies and we do not always support Anonymous targets or actions however it is there choice and with the freedom we all should enjoy that they be allowed to continue and use said name. IF you trademark it , i will begin a legal fund and sue your company. i’ll come up with enough ways to sue you that the cost to show up in court like the mpaa and ifpi do will be the death of you….
( insert extortion racket money grubbing settlement offer here LOL ).
NOT the bracketed will not happen.
I am anonymous as well you cannot trademark me.
WE all are….
CHRoNo??
United Hackers Association
https://www.uha1.com
(location of one of the archives)
https://www.uha1.com/14-mug.jpg
the above is a mug sold back in 2001-2 after the illegal fbi attack on canada and our servers….
all fbi could manage was a weak ddos…..
This is what you corporates play with when you try and rile us up….we are legion, and there is no cyber army on earth that can take us , and no gov’t cyber force that is capable.
Why?
Because we are free….
TM
They’ll be copyrighting sunlight next year, EULA to follow.
To quote something I saw yesterday: “Oh, look, there’s a beehive, let me stick my d**k in it.”
but couldn’t “anonymous” technically be trademarked since something that belongs to everybody essentially belongs to nobody?
jo
gross. i hope anon rapes them via hax. even though all that shit is so lame now…
Anonymous has struck at Early Flicker….
Read all about it.
http://www.examiner.com/article/anonymous-obliterates-french-firm-trademark-fiasco
again?
I started a raid over a year ago to stop something like this and it ended very hilariously but worked out fine — it was another French company. Are they really doing this *again*?