Trademark Infringement

[Ed Oscuro]

After reading up on the details I'm more confused about this than ever.

A trademark is for the protection of a brand. The only way you could be potentially violating the rules of a trademark is if you're offering services under the pretense of their name, or using their logo to identify your own business or services - none of which seems to be the case.
You said they had a URL. What did it point to on your site exactly?

I'd be pretty interested to hear what you find out on this.

Holding a trademark gives you the right to control the use of whatever's been trademarked. It could be a picture, a logo, a stylized version of a phrase, or - if the phrase is uniquely written - the phrase itself.

Frankly, "Cycle Trader" sounds like it shouldn't have been trademarked in the first place, but nobody has time to challenge every dumbass trademark application. Most that are filed are never used. Unfortunately, unless they butt heads against somebody in the business who has a reason to pay for challenging it, their name and their bad enforcement practices are just something to avoid, unfortunately.

One thing that comes to mind in avoiding this is to have multiple hosting set up if you have any "community content" and don't own your own hosting (so people can't go lol DMCA and shut you down a few days). If something is challenged only part of your site goes down.

[GaijinPunch]

This is a provision of the DMCA. If the provider removes the infringing files once they're pointed out, they can avoid a lawsuit for monetary damages. GP's provider is simply covering their ass. Youtube does the same thing.

I have no problem with them removing the infringing files which *WERE* pointed out. They did not: they blocked access to my site and will only give it back once the person that filed the complaint allows it.

The suspension of a hosting account is in response to a trademark infringement complaint on the hosted site content, which appears to violate our terms of service of our Hosting Service Agreement, or our Trademark Infringement Policy.

You will need to contact the complaining party and resolve this issue with them directly. The complaining party would need to contact us and request that we restore access to the hosted account content.

We as the hosting provider, when notified of a valid trademark infringement claim cannot allow this content to display. As long as a domain resolves to this hosting account, we cannot allow the infringing content to display. Please redirect any domains that currently resolve to this hosting account and we will remove the lock on the hosted content.

Fuck this bullshit. I'm heading out for the day, and will shop around for new providers later.

[DC906270]

firstly, lets start a community movment for the return of Gamengai NOW!! secondly, forgive my ignorance, but even if they saw the trademark, how would they know who was hosting the site?

[undamned]

Guilty until proven innocent

I used to have a site hosted on Tradewinds.net (don't even know/care if they exist anymore). I was goofing around w/ FTP and checking some things regarding uploading files larger than 1MB and, on that particular machine, I didn't have any files of significant size to toy with other than some old install for the free version of RealPlayer. I uploaded the file to see if things would go smoothly and was contacted the next day about why my account was locked.

They must search every stinking file uploaded to their webspace, 'cause it was in a flash that they locked me out. I got in contact w/ a real human and I thought this was to my advantage (rather than dealing w/ some automated system), but apparently this particular human lacked the inherent ability to reason. I explained, "Why in the world would I try and host an old version of FREE RealPlayer when there is a better more recent version on their site for free public download? It is clear that I had nothing to gain by this and my file size story holds water." I tried to reason with this "person" via a few e-mails back and forth and it was clear they were either incapable of understanding or unwilling. I think I even said, "You are not a machine! You are a reasoning human being! Work with me like one! Think about what I'm saying to you!"

They never did unlock the account. Fortunately I wasn't insanely attached to the "valuable" stuff hosted there. More frustrating than anything.
-ud

[Ex-Cyber]

This is a provision of the DMCA.

No it isn't. DMCA safe harbor applies specifically to copyright, whereas this complaint is about a trademark. They're completely different areas of law that share only a very vague conceptual similarity. Also, a DMCA takedown notice must include some way for the provider to locate the infringing material (such as URLs/URIs), and the ISP is required only to disable access to that material, not to the whole site.

This situation seems more like a hosting provider run by assholes who would rather cut off a "troublesome" customer than actually work to resolve an issue.

[GaijinPunch]

Operational. The complaining side was quite understanding and had a brain. I can't say the same for Godaddy.

Specineff: the content in question wasn't any of the scans or gaming material, but a file (actually, a subdirectory) which was put there maliciously. It's apparent to me once I got access to the system that I didn't put it there unwillingly. So, for now I'll talk to GoFuckingDaddy on safety measures. I don't see how it couldn't happen again with anything else.

I'm trying to find out how they found it so quickly. The material in question was up less than a day.

[brentsg]

I'm trying to find out how they found it so quickly. The material in question was up less than a day.

If it was put there maliciously, then I don't see why anyone would do this unless the endgame was to get you shut down. They probably "infect" a site with some infringing material and then tip off either the trademark holder or the hosting company.

[incognoscente]

DMCA safe harbor applies specifically to copyright, whereas this complaint is about a trademark.

Thanks for the correction. Clearly I was a bit confused.

[Skykid]

Operational. The complaining side was quite understanding and had a brain. I can't say the same for Godaddy.

Specineff: the content in question wasn't any of the scans or gaming material, but a file (actually, a subdirectory) which was put there maliciously. It's apparent to me once I got access to the system that I didn't put it there unwillingly. So, for now I'll talk to GoFuckingDaddy on safety measures. I don't see how it couldn't happen again with anything else.

I'm trying to find out how they found it so quickly. The material in question was up less than a day.

Glad you got it sorted so quickly. That was kind of scary there for a bit.

Maliciously you say? Aren't there ways to safeguard against people hacking your stuff?

[Mortificator]

FUCK YO FUCKIN SUPER BOWL COMMERCIAL GODADDY.

Any idea if this was someone with a grudge, or just random Internet dickery?

[Thunder Force]

I'm trying to find out how they found it so quickly. The material in question was up less than a day.

If it was put there maliciously, then I don't see why anyone would do this unless the endgame was to get you shut down. They probably "infect" a site with some infringing material and then tip off either the trademark holder or the hosting company.

I'd have to agree this sounds likely given the timing.

[GaijinPunch]

I'm keeping an open mind. I won't rule anything out.

Skykid: Of course there are ways to prevent this, but they become outdated once someone finds a way around.

[Kyle]

Specineff: the content in question wasn't any of the scans or gaming material, but a file (actually, a subdirectory) which was put there maliciously. It's apparent to me once I got access to the system that I didn't put it there unwillingly. So, for now I'll talk to GoFuckingDaddy on safety measures. I don't see how it couldn't happen again with anything else.

It sounds like their Abuse department is way overzealous. A decent provider would give you 24hrs to respond before taking the site offline. If you don't believe that you personally created the directory I would talk to them about file permissions like you mentioned.

[GaijinPunch]

If you don't believe that you personally created the directory I would talk to them about file permissions like you mentioned.

Done did it. They don't give a shit. I'm looking at providers that offer better flavors of linux and higher spec machines for the same money as we speak.

[Ed Oscuro]

This is a provision of the DMCA.

No it isn't. DMCA safe harbor applies specifically to copyright, whereas this complaint is about a trademark. They're completely different areas of law that share only a very vague conceptual similarity. Also, a DMCA takedown notice must include some way for the provider to locate the infringing material (such as URLs/URIs), and the ISP is required only to disable access to that material, not to the whole site.

This situation seems more like a hosting provider run by assholes who would rather cut off a "troublesome" customer than actually work to resolve an issue.

This is all true, and the first point is something I didn't realize (though it makes sense from what the title is).

I wouldn't automatically assume GoDaddy had GP pegged as a "troublesome" customer - they probably just have a policy of ditching the customer at a moment's notice to avoid any trouble. DMCA or not, I believe they have a rather limited window within which to work (the trademark lawyer I spoke to thought so as well).

Ironically, the term "Cycle Trader" may not be infringing at all within other areas. If the PDF I found is related to the folks putting out these notices, they certainly aren't doing a very good job asserting that they have the mark. If the mark wasn't so bland and (totally my opinion) worthless to begin with, they would have lost it by now. The standards of the PTO seem not to be where they once had been.

If somebody planted the offending material, it probably was another party. Cycle Trader has nothing to gain from dicking around random people on the Internet, but somebody else might have something to gain from gaming holes in your code or the hosting's security, or whatever.

I still like my idea of splitting your hosting (if possible), though that would be expensive (depending on how you did it).

Also, please let us know who you go with...I'm kinda tossing around some ideas about putting up a proper website myself (would keep me out of trouble at least, er or so I hope anyway).

[GaijinPunch]

I wouldn't automatically assume GoDaddy had GP pegged as a "troublesome" customer - they probably just have a policy of ditching the customer at a moment's notice to avoid any trouble. DMCA or not, I believe they have a rather limited window within which to work (the trademark lawyer I spoke to thought so as well).

Yes, I've basically stated that a few times. I'd be fine with a 48 hour window (even 24) but I wans't given this at all. They Nancy Graced me.

[ASK]

Didn't read the entire thread but once I saw that you 1) had no idea what 'Cycle Trader' was, 2) Had no idea how they found the file and 3) posted the path of the file, it was obvious your site was setup to serve a phishing site. If you have any sensitive data stored on disk (flat file, database, w/e) at that provider, I'd consider it compromised (e.g., credit cards, e-mail addresses, etc).

I wouldn't doubt if your provider took you offline immediately because it was a phishing site rather than somebody's shitty logo. I work for an ISP, we also provide webhosting, we get requests from companies all the time claiming we're operating phishing sites. They are always 'shoot first, questions later', demanding we immediately take such and such website down.

I can do a bit of analysis on your site if you need it (specifically http and ftp access/error logs), because if you move your site over somewhere else without making any changes, it's probably just going to be compromised all over again.

[GaijinPunch]

I've already patched all backend processes that were outdated. There's no sensitive data really -- unless you consider emails sensitive. No CC numbers or anything like that, so no pressing issues.

The way their policy was explained to me simply does not make sense. Any moron could've disabled the phishing part w/o fucking me in the ass.

[emphatic]

Any moron could've disabled the phishing part w/o fucking me in the ass.

You keep that avatar, and you're setting yourself up as bait for that kind of intrusion.

[GaijinPunch]

You keep that avatar, and you're setting yourself up as bait for that kind of intrusion.

Sounds like someone wants a banger in the mouth.