Cybersquatting at its worst

domainscp · Mar 31, 2013

What a moron, I guess that's what you get for messing with the Donald.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/31/us/new-york-trump-lawsuit/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

Kate · Mar 31, 2013

This is what I would call a form of digital suicide :lol:

Dave_Z · Mar 31, 2013

Not helping the so-called domainer's case is his (supposedly) having domain names of other trademarks. Oh boy.

johname · Mar 31, 2013

Yung, a self-described "domainer,"

Thanks Mr Yung

This is why we should be able to give negative dollar amount appraisals

Probably a member here lol

rngrdanny22 · Mar 31, 2013

johname said:
Yung, a self-described "domainer,"

Thanks Mr Yung

Probably a member here lol

I was just about to ask if anyone had figured out if he was a member...

bmugford · Mar 31, 2013

Awesome. This is not the face that the domainer community needs.

Yung also holds nearly 200 other domain names, including barclayscapitallehman.com, goldmansachsgroup.com, milanvogue.com and hulufriend.com.

In 2009, Yung acquired the domains bofaml.com and mlbofa.com on the same day that Bank of America Corp. and Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. announced their merger, resulting in similar legal action.

Ms Domainer · Mar 31, 2013

*

I just want to cringe.

This asshat gives us all a bad name.

*

ZigmundF · Mar 31, 2013

Not necessarily.
His case may define the boundaries.
And what about the 'fair use'?

alien51 · Apr 1, 2013

johname said:
Yung, a self-described "domainer,"

Thanks Mr Yung

This is why we should be able to give negative dollar amount appraisals

Probably a member here lol

More likely he already got pissed with all the below-reg fee appraisals he got here for his other domains.

Human loonies are a unique breed in this galaxy, believe me.

---------- Post added at 04:24 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:12 PM ----------

ZigmundF said:
Not necessarily.
His case may define the boundaries.
And what about the 'fair use'?

If he was a satirist, he may have a case.

But he declared himself a 'domainer', which has some commercial purpose attached to it. Not to mention that his other domains (which the judge will likely examine), can prove a pattern of cybersquatting famous trademarks.

Dave_Z · Apr 1, 2013

ZigmundF said:
Not necessarily.
His case may define the boundaries.
And what about the 'fair use'?

Those boundaries have been defined since 2001, and fair use depends on the case at hand. Speaking of which, here's the one that started that specific dispute:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2010-2220

And Mr. Yung even had the (arguable) gall to file a lawsuit to stop that:

http://www.fkks.com/blog/Trumpcase.pdf

Which he also lost recently.

alien51 · Apr 1, 2013

I think the guy will declare bankruptcy, in case he gets convicted.

Did he get all these tactics from the military as a former Marine?

CodyDeegan · Apr 2, 2013

he just go with the flow of what is latest happening..a so called "domainer" might be lurking here as well...

dezinerite · Apr 2, 2013

Yuck. This is the kind of news none of us wants to hear. I hope this guy gets what's coming to him.

infmoney · Apr 3, 2013

No one messes with The Donald... period!

discobull · Apr 12, 2013

infmoney said:
No one messes with The Donald... period!

So how do you explain the hair?

dna · Apr 13, 2013

Yung has every right to use a trademark protected domain name if it is to
give commentary and criticism of the owner of the trademarked name.
If Yung is commenting on Trump's shows and business', it is only natural for him to
use the Trump name in his domain name. As long as Yung is not trying to make
money from the trademark, his right to own a domain name with a trademark
in it is protected by the First amendment. I am happy to see that he is standing up
to Donald Trump.

johname · Apr 13, 2013

/\ he target other trademarks (big obvious ones) and his timing (reg when hotel was announced) Total and completely shows the real intent of the donald regs. And "development" he made on the name is clearly seen as trying to be enough of a pain in the butt to Trump to force a buy out.

No freedom fighter here

Dave_Z · Apr 13, 2013

dna said:
As long as Yung is not trying to make
money from the trademark

Which, apparently, he tried:

Complainant urges that Respondent registered the Domain Names to capitalize on Complainant’s fame and notoriety and to sell each of the Domain Names to Complainant at a profit. As stated by Respondent’s representative John Yung, in an email to Complainant’s counsel on November 8, 2010:

Webadviso agrees to negotiate with your organization in hopes of reaching a more mutually agreeable terms. Under the advisement from numerous internet professionals and legal sources, Webadviso believes the domain names, the large internet traffic from the site, and the development programming labor/work that has gone into building the site have significant value. We hope that your organization recognizes these attributes in your effort to negotiate with Webadviso.

Complainant offered to pay Respondent USD 100 to cover the transfer and registration costs for the Domain Names, but this offer was rejected by Respondent’s representative on November 4, 2010. By rejecting Complainant’s reasonable offer to pay the registration and transfer costs associated with the Domain Names and then requesting greater compensation for them, Respondent made clear that it seeks to unfairly profit from its improper registration of the Domain Names.

dna · Apr 13, 2013

But the fact that he uses the domains to be a "pain in the butt to Trump"
is exactly what gives him the right to keep the domain names. It is this
that makes it a free speech issue. And while it does not look good
that he has so many domains that use trademarked names,
until he missuses these domains, it should be assumed that he
will use these for commentary and criticism purposes also.

After being sued by Donald Trump I see nothing wrong with Yung
trying to negotiate a reasonable settlement. Any judge would encourage
this. But an offer of $100 is clearly just an insult.

johname · Apr 13, 2013

He cant hide behind freedom of speech in this case. The preponderance of evidence is that he was reging, squating trademark domains for a profit.

Regging trumpmumbai.com and throwing up a junk wordpress site about Donald instead of the hotel. lol he got not chance of wining and should have took his 100 dollar offer to transfer.

Dave_Z · Apr 13, 2013

dna said:
But the fact that he uses the domains to be a "pain in the butt to Trump"
is exactly what gives him the right to keep the domain names. It is this
that makes it a free speech issue. And while it does not look good
that he has so many domains that use trademarked names,
until he missuses these domains, it should be assumed that he
will use these for commentary and criticism purposes also.

After being sued by Donald Trump I see nothing wrong with Yung
trying to negotiate a reasonable settlement. Any judge would encourage
this. But an offer of $100 is clearly just an insult.

Whatever "should" be assumed is ultimately up to the one overseeing the dispute/s. Unfortunately for Yung, he "shouldn't" have done some of the things - described in both the UDRP action and his pro-se lawsuit - that caused the decision-making authority to find against him.

Personally, I also hope they settle, albeit Yung needs it more than The Donald does.

Cybersquatting at its worst

Restricted (Market)

Domainosaurus RexTop Member

Electrifying GuyTop Member

Planet FutbolTop Member

Established Member

www.DataCube.comTop Member

Top Member

Account Closed

Take Me To Your LeaderTop Member

Electrifying GuyTop Member

Take Me To Your LeaderTop Member

Established Member

VIP Member

Top Member

Top Member

Top Member

Planet FutbolTop Member

Electrifying GuyTop Member

Top Member

Planet FutbolTop Member

Electrifying GuyTop Member

Similar threads

We're social

Pinned

Appreciation

Agreement