161–170 of 243 posts
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.
Judging by the amount of upvotes this post has received, I believe CrowdStrike has made a major PR mistake.
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.
If Cloudflair didn't remove the content and the content was infringing they could lose their safe harbor protections [1].
In this case the website is obviously parody. This highlights the problems with DMCA. Fraudulent DMCA requests incur cost but are almost never penalized.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
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…
> Seems to be having the opposite effect for Crowdstrike considering they paid to have their brand "protected" and now this guy's site is getting lots of traffic! Streissand Effect.
That was fun.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Reminds me of that time when Mike Bloomberg's lawyers preemptively registered 400 .nyc domains for him, apparently without his knowledge, many of which are hilariously negative (MikeIsTooShort.nyc, MikeBloombergIsADweeb.nyc, GetALifeMike.nyc etc.): https://www.huffpost.com/entry/michael-bloomberg-nyc-domain-...
So, Mike, tell us, your lawyers, what slur cuts the deepest so that we may register it in public to protect you . . .
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…
so he didn't much care about it as his email address as he generally used his other domain christian-scipio.de? https://www.christian-scipio.de/contact
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't need empathy when you have a captive market. I'm afraid we're about to enter the "lol fuck you, what're you gonna do, leave?" stage of this organization.
Crowdstrike has several competitors, CarbonBlack, McAfee, Sophos, PaloAlto, etc. Sure, they're all equal shades of shitty, but that's a different issue.
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.
Mr. Scipio had to provide evidence, lose his privacy and justify his use of the domain name to avoid losing it. That is enough proof to conclude that this UDRP thing is deeply unfair and should not exist. "First come, first served" is much more fair than this "burden of proof falls on the defendant" nonsense. We'll have to replace ICANN with something better at some point.
This is why you want to remove as many intermediaries between your content and your audience as possible. Ideal scenario is your own ASN and a pipe with a commit and your own physical box. The only takedown target is your upstream bandwidth provider. From there you’re adding takedown targets: hosting provider, edge cache/firewall provider, commercial CMS, etc. So pick your middle ground carefully. I’d suggest that ch…
In this case Cloudflare, in a spasm of comprehension failure, soiled themselves further by proving unable to distinguish between a trademark complaint and a copyright complaint, and erroneously labelled the former as the latter. Irrespective of the fair use merits on display, the DMCA simply does not apply to trademark disputes.