5 ms·
Facebook listed 3 of the 45, including one that I'd argue does not at all violate TM or phish. In a post like this, they'd likely pick the most egregious exampl
by mmanfrin 7y ago
Facebook listed 3 of the 45, including one that I'd argue does not at all violate TM or phish. In a post like this, they'd likely pick the most egregious examples, so your statement about how obvious this is is entirely baseless. Furthermore, I'm absolutely okay with Namecheap not honoring a demand for information without a subpoena. Those whoisguards protect me from spammers, scammers, and anyone who would want my information from a whois.
- tptacek 7y agoWhy do I care about the other examples if the egregious examples include obvious phishing sites?
- blackearl 7y agoIt sounds like Facebook asked, not a court. Just because you're a big company doesn't mean others need to bend to your will.
- sieabahlpark 7y agoWell what's the point of protecting the domain owner if anyone who comes by and asks can get that info?
- notRobot 7y agoAgreed 100%. I'm a huge fan of removing all PII from whois info. Get a subpoena if you want that data. Otherwise next thing you know they'll be demanding registrant info for "facebookisevil.com" because it "infringes on our trademarks!!!"