- Impact
- 43
October 11, 2017 at 1:30 P.M. in Courtroom 3B at the Camden NJ federal court an in-person status conference will be held. The public can attend.
This involves the dispute over DirectorsChoice.com which is now entering its 16th year. possibly the longest running domain dispute in history?
A few highlights:
-March 2000 - DirectorsChoice.com and DinersChoice.com were registered by me on a drop catch
-Feb 2002 Directors Choice, Inc. sent me email asking to transfer the domain name because the UDRP would a slam . I asked them to identify their trademarks and they never answered and asked to buy the domain.
-From 2002 to 2014 they tried to buy the domain. In some cases they used agents to hide their identity.
-In 2014 they found a lawyer Matthew Swyers who runs The Trademark Company and offers a discount $1499 domain dispute service. Swyers filed a trademark application claims a first use date in 1997 and filed a UDRP at NAF shortly thereafter.
-The NAF panel was formed of Scott Austin (experienced trademark attorney and involved with INTA), Richard Hill (European ICANN participant who loves to pontificate on ICANN lists), and Bruce E. Meyerson (retired judge).
-I filed an opposition to their trademark application because they filed the UDRP just before it was published for opposition.
-I filed a substantial defense and a "supplemental filing" was submitted which I claimed amended the complaint. The domain redirected to a web page that had AdSense ad slots. the ads changed from ads from lawyers in the initial submission to ads for travel-related ads which they claimed were infringing.
-The UDRP panel transferred the domain. Some highlights are that there was no mention of any of the communications over 12 years to buy the domain. While most panels dismiss complaints when this is done this panel found that it was evidence that I was put on notice of their *trade* name. Since the trademark application was not yet complete the panel found a common law trademark. Since there was no evidence I knew about the company when I registered the domain the panel deemed that I knew because both companies were in the USA.
-I transferred the domain to my name and filed a federal lawsuit claiming reverse domain name hijacking and that the use of the domain was "not unlawful."
-I claimed in my lawsuit, among other things, that Swyers manipulated the Google system to cause certain ads to appear as he authored articles related to Google ads and trademark infringement. I am claiming the user most likely downloaded the ads under a contract with Google which indemnifies the web site using the Google adsense code. I am also claiming swyers destroyed evidence, namely, the Google cookie that was used when the specimens were downloaded.
-The lawsuit is being handles by an attorney named Kaplan. The only other case I can find that he handled was Glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com where he represented Glenn Beck and lost the case.
-I also claimed use of the domain was "not unlawful." I don't see how you would prove actions were "not unlawful" especially since the UDRP is not a "law" but a universal policy. My solution was to set up a web site and apply for a trademark. I expected the application to be opposed and I would have to provide legal arguments that the use did not infringe and the use was "not unlawful." (Note there is no actual was to challenge the UDRP decisions. This seems like fine point that most people don't really think about but that is the basis to many of the bad faith actions by panelists. there is no appeal of their decision).
-To my surprise my trademark was not opposed and was successfully registered. So at this point I have a registered trademark and a domain and they have no registration.
-When I posted the trademark certificate to the docket they filed a cancellation proceeding against me. everything at the trademark office gets deferred while the federal suit continues.
-About 6 months after the decision Scott Austin gets named to an ICANN WHOIS panel that Richard Hill is already on.
-I also caught Richard Hill implying on ICANN discussions that the UDRP is prima facie (at first glance) evidence of breaking the law. When I pointed out the UDRP was not law he backed off and said a UDRP is prima facie evidenced of something which he never explained. I pointed out that there was no appeal and that there is no "second glance" so I asked him what a UDRP decision was prima facie evidence of what? Hill disappeared and never answered.
-Counterclaims were filed that makes all sorts of new claims not found in the UDRP.
-Discovery has gone back and forth with their corporate structure, trademarks, whois records, email communications over some 20 years, the specimens, and calling Google as a witness.
-I was a federal employee for 27 years who worked on information security and I am a CISSP for about 15 years. I also ran my own business which included a registration web site as a reseller. hence, I filed my own expert witness report. I claim, among other things, the specimens were not collected using generally accepted procedures and practices for the forensic collection of web specimens.
-Feb 2017 - Swyers enters into a consent agreement where he agrees no longer to practice before the trademark office. The allegation include that he submitted fraudulent specimens and filed fraudulent TM applications. Some lawyers have written about him and they say he will most likely be disbarred in the near future.
-I recently served a subpoena on The Trademark Company and it was returned with an unsigned sticky note. Many of his company addresses are misleading or fake.
-they want to depose me but they want to prevent me from bring a video recorder. They tried demanding it be held in the courthouse to try to prevent me from taping it.
This involves the dispute over DirectorsChoice.com which is now entering its 16th year. possibly the longest running domain dispute in history?
A few highlights:
-March 2000 - DirectorsChoice.com and DinersChoice.com were registered by me on a drop catch
-Feb 2002 Directors Choice, Inc. sent me email asking to transfer the domain name because the UDRP would a slam . I asked them to identify their trademarks and they never answered and asked to buy the domain.
-From 2002 to 2014 they tried to buy the domain. In some cases they used agents to hide their identity.
-In 2014 they found a lawyer Matthew Swyers who runs The Trademark Company and offers a discount $1499 domain dispute service. Swyers filed a trademark application claims a first use date in 1997 and filed a UDRP at NAF shortly thereafter.
-The NAF panel was formed of Scott Austin (experienced trademark attorney and involved with INTA), Richard Hill (European ICANN participant who loves to pontificate on ICANN lists), and Bruce E. Meyerson (retired judge).
-I filed an opposition to their trademark application because they filed the UDRP just before it was published for opposition.
-I filed a substantial defense and a "supplemental filing" was submitted which I claimed amended the complaint. The domain redirected to a web page that had AdSense ad slots. the ads changed from ads from lawyers in the initial submission to ads for travel-related ads which they claimed were infringing.
-The UDRP panel transferred the domain. Some highlights are that there was no mention of any of the communications over 12 years to buy the domain. While most panels dismiss complaints when this is done this panel found that it was evidence that I was put on notice of their *trade* name. Since the trademark application was not yet complete the panel found a common law trademark. Since there was no evidence I knew about the company when I registered the domain the panel deemed that I knew because both companies were in the USA.
-I transferred the domain to my name and filed a federal lawsuit claiming reverse domain name hijacking and that the use of the domain was "not unlawful."
-I claimed in my lawsuit, among other things, that Swyers manipulated the Google system to cause certain ads to appear as he authored articles related to Google ads and trademark infringement. I am claiming the user most likely downloaded the ads under a contract with Google which indemnifies the web site using the Google adsense code. I am also claiming swyers destroyed evidence, namely, the Google cookie that was used when the specimens were downloaded.
-The lawsuit is being handles by an attorney named Kaplan. The only other case I can find that he handled was Glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com where he represented Glenn Beck and lost the case.
-I also claimed use of the domain was "not unlawful." I don't see how you would prove actions were "not unlawful" especially since the UDRP is not a "law" but a universal policy. My solution was to set up a web site and apply for a trademark. I expected the application to be opposed and I would have to provide legal arguments that the use did not infringe and the use was "not unlawful." (Note there is no actual was to challenge the UDRP decisions. This seems like fine point that most people don't really think about but that is the basis to many of the bad faith actions by panelists. there is no appeal of their decision).
-To my surprise my trademark was not opposed and was successfully registered. So at this point I have a registered trademark and a domain and they have no registration.
-When I posted the trademark certificate to the docket they filed a cancellation proceeding against me. everything at the trademark office gets deferred while the federal suit continues.
-About 6 months after the decision Scott Austin gets named to an ICANN WHOIS panel that Richard Hill is already on.
-I also caught Richard Hill implying on ICANN discussions that the UDRP is prima facie (at first glance) evidence of breaking the law. When I pointed out the UDRP was not law he backed off and said a UDRP is prima facie evidenced of something which he never explained. I pointed out that there was no appeal and that there is no "second glance" so I asked him what a UDRP decision was prima facie evidence of what? Hill disappeared and never answered.
-Counterclaims were filed that makes all sorts of new claims not found in the UDRP.
-Discovery has gone back and forth with their corporate structure, trademarks, whois records, email communications over some 20 years, the specimens, and calling Google as a witness.
-I was a federal employee for 27 years who worked on information security and I am a CISSP for about 15 years. I also ran my own business which included a registration web site as a reseller. hence, I filed my own expert witness report. I claim, among other things, the specimens were not collected using generally accepted procedures and practices for the forensic collection of web specimens.
-Feb 2017 - Swyers enters into a consent agreement where he agrees no longer to practice before the trademark office. The allegation include that he submitted fraudulent specimens and filed fraudulent TM applications. Some lawyers have written about him and they say he will most likely be disbarred in the near future.
-I recently served a subpoena on The Trademark Company and it was returned with an unsigned sticky note. Many of his company addresses are misleading or fake.
-they want to depose me but they want to prevent me from bring a video recorder. They tried demanding it be held in the courthouse to try to prevent me from taping it.
