Hacker News Reader

I'm not really sure what more specifics you need. It seems pretty clear that if the key identifying characteristic of a good is that a specific URL indicates the provenance of that good, then selling another good using that URL to deceive the buyer about the provenance of your good is very likely to be grounds for a lawsuit over trademark infringement or misrepresentation.

View on HN

I am dumb. So please explain how “Own this NFT that points to Snoop’s Bored Ape” or “Own this NFT that points to Snoop’s NFT that points to his Bored Ape” is grounds for any legal action. There is no misrepresentation, deception, copying, infringement, or whatnot.

> So please explain how “Own this NFT that points to Snoop’s Bored Ape” or “Own this NFT that points to Snoop’s NFT that points to his Bored Ape” is grounds for any legal action. There is no misrepresentation, deception, copying, infringement, or whatnot.

The thing is, the law isn't just a regex you apply to what the seller said and it tells you if the seller broke the law. That ain't how it works. At the end of the day it's going to come down to whether the seller mislead the buyer.

all it takes is one court case for everyone to learn what not to say, while doing the same action

Reply on news.ycombinator.com