On Tuesday , the Electronic Frontier Foundation issued yet another formal response to an overzealous legal demand , this time over the use of the domain name "collusion.so."

This story begins with President Donald Trump's most public attorney, Rudy Giuliani, who despite being the president's cybersecurity adviser, doesn't seem to understand how Twitter or URLs work.

In December 2018, Giuliani amazingly blamed Twitter itself for turning a phrase he wrote in a tweet ("G-20.in") into a valid URL. An enterprising Twitter user noticed, bought the domain, and turned it into an anti-Trump site.

As it turns out, this wasn't the only failed tweet-as-inadvertent-URL that Giuliani has authored.

Back in September, he wrote:

#REALNEWS: Woodward says no evidence of https://t.co/TZAyo1B7QP does Manafort's team. Mueller can investigate endlessly and he will find no evidence. The only conspiracy,using criminal means, is the campaign to stop and then remove President Trump. — Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) September 16, 2018

Shortly after, a California Web developer bought the Somalia-based domain Collusion.so and pointed it to the well-known legal analysis site Lawfare. Specifically, the redirect went to Lawfare's "Russia Connection" page.

Lawfare denied any connection to this episode.

Jokes aside--and we really did have nothing to do with this--this tweet is a thing of beauty. https://t.co/pEopBuYOHF — Benjamin Wittes (@benjaminwittes) December 5, 2018

Earlier this month, the anonymous developer (whom Ars has granted anonymity so as not to draw the ire of Giuliani and the Trump administration) received a legal demand letter.

However, this letter was not related to Giuliani or the government in any way. It was a cease-and-desist letter from a British law firm called Stobbs. The letter claimed that the domain violated the trademark of a fashion line called "Collusion," which is owned by a Stobbs' client called ASOS.

Among other claims, Stobbs alleged that the collusion.so domain takes "unfair advantage of ASOS' reputation in the COLLUSION brand and the COLLUSION trademark by luring customers to your website for your own gain."

This claim was curious, the developer told Ars.

"It was weird because, at first, I assumed it was going to be some Trump-y whatever [who] saw that link and wanted to cause trouble," he said. "When I read it, I saw that it's not even related to that, so that's funny. It's just some overzealous brand. They just do this to any TLD that has the word 'collusion.' That just struck me as ridiculous. It's not a brand name—it's a word that's in common usage."

The EFF also found Stobbs' claim spurious and specifically called it "ludicrous."

"There is no possible claim of confusion regarding your client's youth clothing line," Daniel Nazer, an EFF attorney, wrote.

Stobbs did not respond to Ars' request for comment.