Event JSON
{
"id": "bc37a2b7211a648762f760bb3cfc4ac277c196ee8a9ec99fb04b836b20b53b0d",
"pubkey": "9eefd04d32ab5da8de12d7b83201578ea095a676acf3a692ec1b0b202ae4e16f",
"created_at": 1694095104,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"p",
"abb65a6d8adf8748b8e092c4c9c381684c85d0a2e085da22450ebf965a4da9d7",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"p",
"bd79f593847edadbde958c249b585f90135205eda679db048abc886425c94ca3",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub"
],
[
"e",
"e8d79f8a54377eacf5292ca4c92a815fa2fd4eddb8e4a6a41d70d219e1f57bb6",
"wss://relay.mostr.pub",
"reply"
],
[
"proxy",
"https://mastodon.social/users/design_law/statuses/111024216739943376",
"activitypub"
]
],
"content": "nostr:npub14wm95mv2m7r53w8qjtzvnsupdpxgt59zuzza5gj9p6levkjd48ts9fnnx9 I haven't pulled up the TRO briefing yet but, based on what the court says, the plaintiff asked the court for this extraordinary form of relief based on trademark infringement, not copyright infringement. So the issue here isn't whether the plaintiff could prevail on a properly-brought copyright claim; it's whether they sought and obtained the TRO improperly.",
"sig": "4ec3ccca34b8373b8c274bc569fe9ee1585e393c9d1712d6a1eb51ebed78c91f9124c41309635f3be30113665d0feb6bbddf93fb771a850f0ec7116cdb2b4474"
}
