Event JSON
{
"id": "fe7791e85c00f674998a0194f68ffb1da67d160dbd59b51f4cac6276d8fbdb0b",
"pubkey": "85c220e6add040d8bb71a25235f7d631d82c5356bcd4c0578b393c17b870d4e7",
"created_at": 1705094641,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"2f416f7052b4e52a0e0f6813bcd2b44f0a0b29befbea1356995fc25727f75554",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"f8bb95387db659f0ecbfabdf9e83f03c7ad471a31dfbf6283bf09186d776b4db",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"cefd1d1dad728f322816567fe4621ebcc282245057e61e3d5690e337a88c6f20",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://techpolicy.social/users/paulalanlevy/statuses/111745082401425581",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:npub19aqk7uzjknjj5rs0dqfme545fu9qk2d7l04px45etlp9wflh242q5t7n7p Indeed, extension of Rogers to a case like this just strikes me as a perversion of Rogers. At least in Jack Daniels it was clear that there was a parody of JD. This is just a rivalrous use of the same word to identify products. Any mark is \"expressive\" in that sense, to be sure, but not in the Rogers sense.",
"sig": "80517e9a52fc51b77eb399132fac2af79f6794d7b802df65d1b87a82c1639f2bf945ed37139b8bccbdf409090695503854a2d32ec579902075b6ab817ac64821"
}
