>Per the DMCA (or, really, the Online Copyright Infringement Liability Limitation Act - OCILLA), the hosting provider must comply with a takedown notice should they receive it, regardless of how idiotic it appears, so long as the content that is claimed to be infringing is hosted by the provider and the notice is completed.
I don't think that's actually true in this case. The actual language of the law says that for a notification to be effective under the law, it must include identification of a the copyrighted work infringed. Since this notification does not identify copyrighted work (and explicitly refers to trademark), it technically isn't even a DMCA takedown notification, as defined under the law.
I don't think that's actually true in this case. The actual language of the law says that for a notification to be effective under the law, it must include identification of a the copyrighted work infringed. Since this notification does not identify copyrighted work (and explicitly refers to trademark), it technically isn't even a DMCA takedown notification, as defined under the law.