Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

clownstrike.lol

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 243 posts

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#121

Post by [deleted] »

bhartzer wrote: post #61
fxtentacle wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reads kind of like an advertisement. Plus it's subtly wrong. My experience with the NameBlock API is that for those $99/year, they'll allow you to automate purchasing all similar domains. But then you have to pay registration fees on all of those domains, too. It's only $10/month per typo domain that you buy, but it sums up really quickly.

You're thinking of some other service, not NameBlock or GlobalBlock. There's no automated purchasing of all similar domain names. You don't pay registration fees, as the domains that end up being blocked will never be registered by anyone (not even you). There literally is a block on the variations, it works at the Registry level not the registrar level.

[deleted]

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#122

Post by sophacles »

ronsor wrote: post #28

Judging by the amount of upvotes this post has received, I believe CrowdStrike has made a major PR mistake.

I believe the brand reputation company made a mistake on behalf of crowdstrike. I doubt anyone at crowdstrike was involved directly.

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#123

Post by wlesieutre »

fxtentacle wrote: post #29
new299 wrote: post #10

I wonder to what extent companies consider the reputational damage these kinds of enforcement actions cause. I recently came across this when googling for information on a small Biotech startup: https://udrp.adr.eu/decisions/detail?id=65fab3e46fc02956a010... Will probably be the first thing I remember when I hear their name.

Oh wow, they sued someone who used his last name as a domain name because they feel like their trademark should allow them to prohibit him from using his family name ... And obviously they registered their trademark after he started using his name.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nissan_Motors_v._Nissan_Comput...

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#124

Post by sophacles »

lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote: post #115
jjulius wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Touché, thank you!

To be fair, they actually sent a copyright infringement notice for this alleged trademark infringement. You were just describing their behavior!

To be fair, a trademark logo is also copyright protected... It's art. If crowdstrike lost the trademark, they'd still own the copyright on that logo.

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#125

Post by WheatMillington »

rainsford wrote: post #92
nerdponx wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares if it doesn't hurt revenue?

I certainly don't want to claim everyone on Hacker News is a high powered CISO making EDR purchasing decisions for their Fortune 500 company or whatever, but I feel like there are enough people with actual influence who read this site that if I was a security company (or any tech company) I wouldn't want front page stories that make me look petty about getting rightly clowned on after a fuck-up of galactic proportion…

I mean... is THIS going to be the thing to tip you over the edge? Not last month's shenanigans, but THIS?

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#127

Post by Terretta »

rsingel wrote: post #106

Cloudflare's lawyers should have told Crowd strike to kick rocks. The DMCA's copyright provisions apply only to copyrighted content not trademarks. Cloudflare could have told these clowns to go kick rocks without incurring any liability and could have threatened them with filing fake DMCA claims.

> Cloudflare's lawyers should have told Crowd strike to kick rocks.

Not all ISPs use provisions in the DMCA that let them put the burden back on the claimant. A few do.

In general, if ISPs or CDNs have a free plan, they can't, as bad actors leverage these free plans in bulk.

But ISPs or CDNs that charge actual money to known customers will generally not take down until all legal avenues to keep their client online are exhausted or someone upstream from them blinks which threatens the rest of their customers.

It's not a question of getting what you pay for so much as being sure that everyone using the same provider is paying, and having a discussion with the provider before it happens instead of during. You also need all links to play it this way, or you have to host in a different jurisdiction, which may not be possible for some data/content.

There are ISPs, CDNs, DNS registrars, data center facilities, backbone providers, who don't take down before asking questions, so if you need to be in the USA, find those.

// I have been both a provider refusing to take a client down for nonsense, and a client of those upstream who refused to take us down when our clients were under threat. And yes, when this would happen we spent money rather than cave if the mega corp insisted to go to court, yes the mega corps lost (typically instantly), and yes we donated to EFF.

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#128

Post by indigodaddy »

rhabarba wrote: post #76
eftychis wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess this site is using Linux or BSD and they had to venture outside their usual modus operandi to DMCA... /s

Don't forget that Clownstrike took down Linux systems in April.

Falcon sensor has been causing kernel panics / memory stacktraces / and insanely high load for years on Linux boxes (RHEL 7/8 mostly where I was at), not just in April.

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#130

Post by fuzztester »

bitwize wrote: post #85
fxtentacle wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh wow, they sued someone who used his last name as a domain name because they feel like their trademark should allow them to prohibit him from using his family name ... And obviously they registered their trademark after he started using his name.

Prince Rogers Nelson's given name was a registered trademark of Warner Music. It took that whole stunt with him changing his name to Love Symbol #2 to get them to relent.

wow.

i didn't know that prince was the same as prince rogers nelson (only vaguely remembered the name prince as a musician from dances at high school), so googled his name:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_(musician)

Post reply on HN