Live data from Hacker News

CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

clownstrike.lol

151–160 of 243 posts

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#151
post #145

Where’s the infringement when the name doesn’t even match?! “Crowdstrike” vs “Clownstrike”? Or is it illegal now to rhyme words? After what happened, that company should be dismantled for good.

> is it illegal now to rhyme words Trademarks have always applied anything that could reasonably be confused with it. So yes, it is illegal to rhyme trademarks. But trademarks has also long since allowed for parody and other usage that doesn't harm the trademark owner. That's why it's a nonsense request, not because of the rhyming.

> So yes, it is illegal to rhyme trademarks.

Do you have any real life examples of that?

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#153
post #134
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.

He was even willing to sell it for €5,000. If they had just paid that relatively small sum instead of getting all triggered that someone might ask money they would have had the domain. Hilarious. Good on this Christian fella for winning. What a bunch of idiots. This does bring up a question though; I've had arp242.net for a long time, and obviously that's not my actual name. Can some company register "arp242" as a tr…

They can try through the UDRP, but your easy defense is to point that the date registered exceeds their TM by years. The UDRP would be highly likely to end in your favor should you dispute.

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#154
I am familiar with CSC, and have received a multitude of fake DMCA takedown requests from them.They make it look like a DMCA but logos are usually trademarks (TM) and not copyright protected (c). So you cannot send a DMCA.

Basically their strategy is to flood the internet with fake DMCA, targeting everything that isn't seen as positive for the brand.

I 100% ignore their requests, and so far nothing has happened, keep in mind they send millions of it.

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#155

What I don't understand is why companies and brands like this just don't use NameBlock or a similar domain blocking service like GlobalBlock. They literally can block domain names that have their company name or brand in them from being registered (up to 500 variations of their domain). It's literally like $99/year to place a block. Saves a lot of the hassle of having to deal with parody and phishing sites and trying…

[flagged]

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#156
Does anyone have experience with these trademark/DMCA takedown requests? I'm curious, do receivers of these requests really do any sort of due diligence on the requests? Or, do they just rubber-stamp them, and pass them onto the targets of the requests? For example, if I hit YouTube/Google with a trademark/DMCA takedown request, claiming to own the name, "Mr. Beast", and I provide some phoney registration number, they're not gonna act it on...are they?

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#157
post #99
post #33

FWIW: CSC is a company that other companies hire to act on its behalf. It's very likely that the company you work for uses CSC as it's registered agent in the State of Delaware for administrative purposes (CSC doesn't really do anything other than exist on paper and file annual forms to satisfy legal and compliance requirements necessary for companies to exist in the US). I wasn't aware they file DMCA requests on beh…

Where they may have messed up is with the use of crowdstrike's branding. I've worked for a company that had a near 100% success rate with taking over domains that used their branding. Not just taking down the site, but taking ownership of the whole domain.

Were any of those success for violation of copyright or trademark when used in parody? I don't know if it would hold up, or how long it would even be between a domain registrar handing it over and having a day in court, but there does seem to be a good case for this being a protected use of CrowdStrike's protected branding.

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#159
post #145

Where’s the infringement when the name doesn’t even match?! “Crowdstrike” vs “Clownstrike”? Or is it illegal now to rhyme words? After what happened, that company should be dismantled for good.

> is it illegal now to rhyme words Trademarks have always applied anything that could reasonably be confused with it. So yes, it is illegal to rhyme trademarks. But trademarks has also long since allowed for parody and other usage that doesn't harm the trademark owner. That's why it's a nonsense request, not because of the rhyming.

Trademarks protect against confusing consumers. I don't think any reasonable person looked at this website and thought CrowdStrike launched a rebranding or was in any way involved.

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#160
post #134
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.

He was even willing to sell it for €5,000. If they had just paid that relatively small sum instead of getting all triggered that someone might ask money they would have had the domain. Hilarious. Good on this Christian fella for winning. What a bunch of idiots. This does bring up a question though; I've had arp242.net for a long time, and obviously that's not my actual name. Can some company register "arp242" as a tr…

I think they generally give a lot of weight to someone who registered the domain well ahead of the said company registering their mark. Though you might run into trouble if you started using the domain in bad-faith against that company (ex. impersonating them).

In your example, you had that domain well in advance, it's your self-identified pseudonym that predates said mark, and it's actively being used to host your personal website. That seems like a pretty strong defense.

Post reply on HN