news Proofpoint sues Facebook over domains

[NicTraders]

https://www.cyberscoop.com/proofpoint-sues-facebook-anti-phishing-training-lookalike-domains/
and
https://siliconangle.com/2021/02/11...ookalike-domain-names-used-security-training/

This could get interesting. While they don't dispute at all that the domains are similar to Facebook's, Proofpoint argues that they are being used in good faith. I tend to agree with them. But that doesn't mean the law courts will....

 

[AEProgram]

FB is the bully here, they know that this is a legit company using it for training and it is clearly marked on the site.

 

[Samer]

plot twist “Proofpoint” sounds too much “Power Point”

Expect a counter suit

 

[pb]

This should be interesting. Bad faith is one of the conditions for transferring domains in a UDRP case, so in theory they should be fine...

 

[Goku]

game changer maybe?

 

[MadAboutDomains]

TLDR: Proofpoint uses domains like "Facebook-login.com" and" "Instagrarn.net" to send emails to people for "phishing training".

Seems strange to me that they need to own any domains for this purpose. Given that there are other technological ways to achieve this instead of owning domains that are the same or confusingly similar to an established brand that have rights in the names...

It seems logical to me that it should surely be up to Facebook and Instagram to control who owns these names whether they are used "for legitimate purposes" or not IMHO.

It's their brand that they have a right to protect and license as they please.

Obviously I'm coming at this from a laymens interpretation, though it will be interesting to see how the law is interpreted for this.

 

[CraigD]

They could have chosen to use any other domain name to train students.

 

[NicTraders]

They could have chosen to use any other domain name to train students.

No, not at all. I think you misunderstand how they're training people. The whole point is that Proofpoint (on behalf of companies who contract them to do so) send emails to employees (after training) to test whether people click the same type of link that you would find in a phishing email. Essentially if the employee ignores the email or reports it to IT they have passed because they noticed that it was a dodgy domain/email. If they click the link they have 'failed', and receive a message informing them about the testing. Thus the typo domains are an essential part of the testing.

 

[Alop]

No, not at all. I think you misunderstand how they're training people. The whole point is that Proofpoint (on behalf of companies who contract them to do so) send emails to employees (after training) to test whether people click the same type of link that you would find in a phishing email. Essentially if the employee ignores the email or reports it to IT they have passed because they noticed that it was a dodgy domain/email. If they click the link they have 'failed', and receive a message informing them about the testing. Thus the typo domains are an essential part of the testing.

The students should learn a very educational item here ...do not bite the hand that feeds ...ProofPoint what my guy ?

 

[MadAboutDomains]

No, not at all. I think you misunderstand how they're training people. The whole point is that Proofpoint (on behalf of companies who contract them to do so) send emails to employees (after training) to test whether people click the same type of link that you would find in a phishing email. Essentially if the employee ignores the email or reports it to IT they have passed because they noticed that it was a dodgy domain/email. If they click the link they have 'failed', and receive a message informing them about the testing. Thus the typo domains are an essential part of the testing.

Yup, and I suppose the question is whether they have the right to use these company names for this purpose.

 

[Soofi]

I believe ProofPoint has the right to use such domains if they were allowed by the contracted party in their contract to use their brand names or trademarks accordingly, else they in for a tough battle.

 

[TauseefKhan]

PROOFPOINT SAYS LOOKALIKE DOMAINS ARE FAIR GAME... it will be interesting how court will interpret this.

 

[Soofi]

PROOFPOINT SAYS LOOKALIKE DOMAINS ARE FAIR GAME... it will be interesting how court will interpret this.

The court will obviously side with the brand owner.

 

[Samer]

The court will obviously side with the brand owner.

Facebook has history of being aggressive protect TM.

It can set precedent, so theoretically i would tend agree.

 

[Mytz.com]

Domain names of large companies are best left untouched

 

[Kris88]

well they're right, lookalike domains are fine in my opinion

 

[Alop]

well they're right, lookalike domains are fine in my opinion

“Lookalike” domains/sites/words have been implemented for a very long time