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

191–200 of 243 posts

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#191

Post by bhartzer »

8organicbits wrote: post #113
bhartzer wrote: post #37

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…

The offending TLD here is .lol, which is not one of the TLDs they support. This would not have helped in this instance. https://globalblock.co/included-extensions/ I'm also seeing much higher pricing: https://www.101domain.com/global-block.htm

GlobalBlock is owned by GoDaddy, and pretty much covers the TLDs/extensions that are owned by GoDaddy Registry.

NameBlock is a separate company than GlobalBlock, and covers a different set of TLDs/extensions.

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#192

Post by bhartzer »

josephcsible wrote: post #131
bhartzer wrote: post #37

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…

How can such services exist? Why would the registrars listen to them?

The domains are blocked at the registry level, not the registrar level.

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#193

Post by batch12 »

_heimdall wrote: post #157
batch12 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yeah, there were a few. I believe they had to demonstrate that there was a risk that a customer could be misled or something.

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#195

Post by [deleted] »

defrost wrote: post #188
arp242 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you also want me to prove the sky is blue and that sex causes babies? It's trademark basics that it applies to anything that can reasonably be confused with it. But please, try starting up Goodle Search or Matflix Streaming and let us know how that went for you.

Mat Goodle and Katie Perry might want to weigh in on that: Katy Perry v Katie Perry: Singer loses trademark battle https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-65421964

[deleted]

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#196

Post by EvanAnderson »

evilduck wrote: post #147
subpub47 wrote: post #135

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.

> Sure, they're all equal shades of shitty, but that's a different issue.

You can choose which digital shotgun is strapped to your organizational forehead.

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#197

Post by para_parolu »

not2b wrote: post #118
dh2022 wrote: post #102

If ClownStrike wanted to take down the site they should deploy another buggy update. They will take the site down along with the rest of the Internet…

Only those sites that continue to allow every CrowdStrike update to go instantly to every device without any sanity testing would be hit by the next one. Competent IT departments will recognize that they can't risk their business in this way any more. Airlines in particular will have to recognize that they can't afford the hundreds of millions of dollars in losses that could come from a repeat of this, from either Cr…

They didn’t consider first time. Why would they change mind? I believe most companies will still run security theater with crowdstrike or whatever other provider

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#198

Post by devrand »

fsckboy wrote: post #167
arp242 wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> He was even willing to sell it for €5,000. 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

It sounds like they intended to use it as the primary e-mail domain for himself and family. They claimed that they had already switched to using it.

However, the total window of time here is small. They registered the domain in late November 2023 and this UDRP was filed in late February 2024. It also sounds like initial contact to try to acquire the domain occurred in early December 2023... so only a couple days after it was registered.

Re: CrowdStrike representatives issue trademark infringement notice to ClownStrike

#200

Post by rsingel »

poizan42 wrote: post #187
bhelkey wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Cloudflare could have told these clowns to go kick rocks without incurring any liability 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. [1] https://www.dmca.com/FAQ/What-is-a-DMCA-Takedown

Not if the DMCA takedown notice wasn't valid in the first place. (By valid I mean it correctly follows the requirements in the DMCA, one of them being that it must be for copyright. It does not apply to other kinds of IP, nor does it apply to other violations of the DMCA such as the anti-circumvention provision cough youtube-dl cough )

This is correct and exactly why Cloudflare should have thrown this in the green compost bin the moment it showed up, and written back to say if you send us this kind of trash again, we will sue you.
Post reply on HN