[AlexandrB]

How is "instagrambusinesshelp.com" impersonating Facebook services? Is the argument here that using "Instagram" in a domain name inherently not allowed?

Edit: Would "instagramsucks.com" or "facebooksucks.com" also be infringing?

[tinus_hn]

One name implies it’s related to the company, another does not. That’s why there are judges instead of robots in court.

[swiley]

The name only loosely suggests it might be related, it doesn’t (at least to me) directly imply it.

[notahacker]

I mean, it's alleged they were a phishing operation...

And in terms of trademark law the owners are unlikely to be on stronger grounds if they're not a pure phishing operation as alleged, but have merely chosen to include Facebook's trademark in their website or email marketing name without Facebook's permission to increase the likelihood Facebook's customers will purchase services from them.

You don't have to imply you definitely are the owner of a trademark to fall foul of trademark law, you just have to be trying to profit from using the trademark without permission in their line of trade in a way you can't justify as 'fair use'. I think we can rule out the idea instagrambusinesshelp.com is commentary, comparison, parody or a list of third parties worked with.

[cooljacob204]

But you have to consider your everyday user who has no real understanding of how companies use domains outside of being a name. That domain suggests it's business support for Instagram.

[swiley]

I feel like an everyday person would see that and think “ah a 3rd party consultant to help with my influencer business” (or whatever the professional application of instagram is.)

[gentleman11]

Almost every windows website in existence is liable under this description. It is confusing, but protecting domain names via trademark law seems undesirable to me in most cases

[gibolt]

Instagram has a business portal. When your site could easily be mistaken as an official company channel, that should not be allowed.

[bavell]

This seems like a bad knee-jerk reaction, not a real solution.

My company also has a business portal. Can I take down domains that are similar to it as well? Or is this power just reserved for MegaCorp Inc. who can afford large legal teams? At what point does a company become large enough to warrant "protection" of domains similar to their own? Who makes that decision and is there any dispute process? Etc, etc...

So many questions and potential pitfalls surrounding this approach. I don't know if there's any better realistic "solution" than to let users ultimately be responsible for the domains they visit. Not much of a solution but I don't see any better options that are both realistic and helpful.

[Kalium]

There's an ICANN process that allows you to file exactly this sort of domain-specific takedown notice. https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en

The big drawback of the process it that it doesn't work well for phishing attacks, where taking down one domain is of limited value. It's designed more for things like nissan.com

[AlexandrB]

But the language on Facebook's press release implies that the names themselves are misleading. They don't mention the content.

I'm not disputing that the sites themselves are scammy/phishing, but what Facebook is saying here sounds like an overreach that amounts to "using Facebook trademarked names in a domain name is misleading and inherently untrustworthy".

[shaneprrlt]

So if you started a small consulting company helping people advertise or build a brand on Instagram, and your website was instagrambusinesshelp.com, Facebook has the right to say "not allowed"?

Do I also have the right to impose rules on other businesses naming conventions [1], or no because I'm not a $500B company?

[1] In a fair use context, not blatant copyright/trademark infringement or posing as the company in a phishing context.

[derision]

There is no fair context for that under the law. The name is trademarked so unless you have approval from Facebook to use their trademark then using it is not legal. It's not that complicated.

[mcbits]

Maybe domain names are treated differently from book titles, but I don't see why they should be. There certainly is fair use of trademarks in book titles if the use is descriptive, not likely to lead to confusion about who produced the book, and can't be effectively replaced with a more generic term. E.g. "That Popular Graphics Editor for Dummies" isn't a sensible substitute for "CorelDRAW! for Dummies".

[koolba]

They don’t even like you use “book”.

[jbob2000]

My assumption is that "instagrambusinesshelp.com" was impersonating Instagram to scam people. Instagramsucks.com probably isn't trying to impersonate them, just complaining about them.

[rstupek]

And likely wouldn't be infringing Instagram tm.