Hacker News Reader

Comment by numeri | Hacker News Reader

The big issue here is that they didn't issue a DMCA request, they reported them for fraud.

It usually all goes through the same kinds of process pipeline. Complain about URL to provider, provider sends complaint to you, you remedy complaint, then notify provider. In this case it seems provider totally dropped the ball. It’s a bad look for the agency etc but also I would terminate relationship with the provider who can’t be trusted to be a functioning part of the system, and when you migrate to a new provider make sure you know every link in the chain and have a relationship or trust the link to escalate for you.

Why do you keep ignoring the fact that the report was for fraud and phishing? Sending a DMCA complaint or a copyright or trademark complaint to the registrar might've made sense for the reasons you outline here, but that's not what the complaint was.

Why are you so insistent on running defense for them?

I’m sharing my perspective and experience from working on both the provider side and the website side in the hopes it helps any HN readers building something.

Some things you cannot control - people sending takedowns, provider fuckups. Some things you can control - who your providers are, how you structure your site.

I agree that your biggest fuck-up here is iwantmyname who immediately took down the domain of a long-time, well-renouned customer without even contacting said customer. However, that has no relevance to what I've said or what this discussion is about, which is that Funko's actions (or that of their "brand protection partner") doesn't align with the stated goal of taking down the specific page.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com