I've never heard of itch.io before but from what I can tell:
- Itch.io is a platform where people unaffiliated with itch.io can create pages and sell video games
- An itch.io user created a game that used Funko's brand without authorization
- Itch.io (correctly) removed that page when they were made aware of that by their registrar and server host, then responded to both letting them know they'd taken care of it
- The server host (Linode) said that was great and closed the issue. The registrar (iwantmyname) did not respond, then a few days later yanked the domain.
This is exactly the sort of thing the DMCA exists for (assuming itch.io is located in the United States) and it's exactly why the safe harbor provisions exist.
It's like if someone posted a copyright-infringing picture to Facebook and Facebook's registrar responded by taking down the entirety of facebook.com.
So no, this is not on itch.io's shoulders, this is on iwantmyname's (for disabling itch.io's domain even after being made aware of the circumstances) and Brand Shield (for not submitting a complaint to itch.io first and waiting to see if they'd take down the infringing user's content before escalating to itch.io's ISP and server host).
Itch Corp might be in the USA - but their registrar is in New Zealand. That seems like a poor strategic choice for both customer service reasons and legal compatibility reasons.
It seems like the owner of the domain received notice from the registrar 6 days ago and immediately took action by removing the content referenced in the trademark claim and notifying the registrar.
But they got no response and instead the domain went down today.
Going directly to the registrar in response to an issue on a handful of pages is akin to getting the wrong change, saying nothing to the person on the checkout, then seeking out the store manager to get them fired.
Note the "fraud and phishing" complaint. Like, I don't see _any_ way to get to that from what's going on, and of course registrars (correctly) take such complaints far more seriously than DMCA complaints (which shouldn't really be going to the registrar in the first instance, of course).
I wouldn't particularly blame the registrar here, though now that 'AI' spamware is doing this, registrars will presumably have to take fraud complaints a lot less seriously, and the internet will get a little bit worse. But certainly this isn't itch.io's fault; the blame lies squarely with the spamware, and with Funko for using such spamware in the first place.
To be clear, there is no issue with them making a DMCA takedown. This should be made to the operator (ie itch.io). They _did not do this_. Instead they complained to the registrar of phishing/fraud. Registrars, not unreasonably, take complaints of fraud seriously, and many will nuke first and answer questions later. However, clearly, no fraud was involved.
(I'm not sure if you're being wilfully obtuse, or if you suffer from the ol' Hackernews "reading the linked material is forbidden" problem, but I just don't see how you can defend the false complaint of fraud.)
... Ah, I see, you're speculating that itch is _lying_ about it? Why would they? Like, what they describe is the sort of thing you'd expect to find on itch.
Occam's razor very much says that they are not lying, and that this is simply a false report by 'AI' spamware.
I'm not speculating about anything. They made a claim and provided nothing to evidence it.
Similarly, the other side have made a claim which - apparently - was accepted by the registrar.
Why does Occam's razor not say that the claimant isn't lying?
FWIW, I think Itch are probably right. But there is a lot of IP infringement on there. Is it unreasonable to think that one of those page might have a phishing form on it?