parro-it/canibekikked

Tool to check if any of your NPM repositories name are trademarked

canibekikked's Issues

Can you filter on specific goods and services

Noting in your example the hit for "CHILLI" is a word mark for clothing. The information is good either way, but can you highlight classes that would have more of a chance to conflict?

Just a curiosity. Feel free to close this issue. :)

Doesn't work on Node v0.10.x

$ canibekiked dfellis

/Users/damocles/.nvm/v0.10.31/lib/node_modules/canibekiked/cli.js:3
const ora = require('ora');
^^^^^
SyntaxError: Use of const in strict mode.
    at Module._compile (module.js:439:25)
    at Object.Module._extensions..js (module.js:474:10)
    at Module.load (module.js:356:32)
    at Function.Module._load (module.js:312:12)
    at Function.Module.runMain (module.js:497:10)
    at startup (node.js:119:16)
    at node.js:906:3

README should state what versions of Node are supported.

Oh wow you have to change the name.

I suggest canibekikked. As I understand it, "kike" is to jews what "nigger" is to black people.

Name is misleading.

As this tool only checks for trademark overlap, the name is highly misleading.

The Kik issue is irrelevant to trademark law, even though Kik was motivated by the protection of their trademark: Had Kik not had a registered trademark, they still could have asked NPM for the package and NPM still likely would have granted it under their T&Cs.

Coverage is only partial.

While Kik's motivation for acting was the perceived need to protect their trademark (they were misguided here, but believed they had to), checking for trademarks alone will not protect any package author.

Basically, the NPM dispute resolution policy shows that they are willing to transfer ownership arbitrarily if they think it is prudent to do so. Note that:

1. Example #3 does not state that Foo Inc has a trademark on the term foo -- and in fact trademarks aren't mentioned at all.
2. According to their own Medium post, Kik never actually provided any proof of having a trademark to NPM
3. There's no specificity around jurisdiction in that document (although others imply that California law may be the frame of reference they operate under)
4. Their own trademark policy suggests they've been well-advised on US trademark law, and would have known that Kik was being overzealous, but they chose to remove Azer's ownership of the name anyway -- which strongly supports the idea that they are willing to reassign ownership of a name even in absence of a compelling legal reason