[mmanfrin]

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.

[notRobot]

Agreed 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!!!"

[jfengel]

Isn't "getting a subpoena" basically what they're doing?

[gpm]

I think normally they would sue the people who registered the domain to get a subpoena, not namecheap itself.

[jfengel]

I thought the point was that they're suing namecheap to get the names of the people who registered the domain, because namecheap was serving as an anonymity service.

[rstupek]

Actually all PII information is already removed from whois info. I think it was a consequence of gdpr

[notRobot]

Nah namecheap made whoisguard free for all long before GDPR if memory serves correctly

[rstupek]

They may have but regardless of them doing so, gdpr resulted in the making of whois data not generally available to anyone.

[tptacek]

Why do I care about the other examples if the egregious examples include obvious phishing sites?

[blackearl]

It 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]

Well what's the point of protecting the domain owner if anyone who comes by and asks can get that info?