3 ms·

That looks like an open and shut ICANN trademark case to me. https://web.archive.org/web/20250728091154/https://www.putty.org/ https://web.archive.org/web/2025

• TazeTSchnitzel 1y ago
  They publish (right at the bottom of that page) the emails where a journalist asked them why they're squatting the PuTTY domain and somehow think they make the journalist look bad?! https://web.archive.org/web/20250728091156/https://www.putty.org/20250713-MiraiF-Emails.txt https://web.archive.org/web/20250728091156/https://www.putty...
  • tanepiper 1y ago
    The guy who runs putty.org is absolutely the South Park basement guy
  • kemayo 1y ago
    They do kinda make the journalist look bad. That email exchange opened with a bunch of extremely-loaded questions, and quickly transitioned into the journalist actively advocating for the transfer of the domain, and using "I'm going to report about this" as a threat. Plus, I can find absolutely zero evidence of the existence of a German journalist called "Mirai F", so I'm a bit suspicious. (It might be the "PuPRed" person being maybe-doxxed -- but that's a blog site which entirely consists of a single article about PuTTY, so I'm not convinced "journalist" applies in a meaningful sense.) The Bitvise answers also don't look good, of course. Nobody comes out of that one smelling like roses. I say this as someone who thinks putty.org was pretty sketchy before it went full anti-vax, and is currently looking like a slam-dunk example of the kind of thing trademark law was meant for.
• commandersaki 1y ago
  There isn't a trademark for PuTTY.
  • account42 1y ago
    Wrong. There isn't a registered trademark.
• immibis 1y ago
  Do they have a trademark? It costs $325 per year plus roughly $650 for the initial application (even if rejected). Is he paying that?
  • account42 1y ago
    You're talking about registered trademarks, that's not the only kind.