Precedent setting ruling READ THIS

[AdsenseGuy]

Today I spent the day in court, As I have told you all previously I where I work. This gives me an advantage to an extent in information that may or not come to fruition, due to some contract restraints there is some information i can use to my advantage and some I cant. On that note please read on.

About a year ago i regged a domain googleemail.com and google caught wind of it and promptly issued me a UDRP, Guess what They won big surprise. While under the rules of NAF i was entitled to file court action to keep my domain, and the domain was to remain mine until the courts decided. My registrar ENOM was supposed to keep this domain locked and in my account until the court proceedings where finished. They did not do this what they actually did was let google's registrar have this domain and they placed it into googles account.

Well as of today and todays PRECEDENT setting ruling I have been granted by the courts I am the rightful owner of this domain as well as the courts have indicated that they see no trademark infringement, The order goes somewhat like this I am the owner of this domain and Enom should never have transfered this domain while it was under the courts juridiction, It is so ordered that the domain be transferred back into my name it is also ordered that I am given the right to sue Enom if they cannot get my domain back. I was also granted exclusive use and ownership of this domain. The judge also indicated that by google now being in posession of my legally owned domain that I may sue them for damages resulting if they refuse to hand it back over to me. I was also awarded damages in cash from this lawsuit.

My question to you all is as follows. I will not have a copy of the judgement transcript until Friday at the earliest. Once I have these documents I want them to hit the internet like wildfire can anyone here help me get these documents into the right hands. I will be sending ENOM and Google a copy of the transcript but I want this to be as public as possible. Google DIDNT win one for a change. The judge clearly and decisively covered all aspects concerning this ruling even more so than I expected. They have had my domain for 3 months now and I want it back to be able to do with it as I want. But I need your help fellow NPers I want the world to know what I have had to deal with and what ENOM did to me as the judge did not place any restrictions on publicity....OH isnt the IPO coming out soon.....

Please if you can help me I will remember your helpfulness Also Namepros was brought up in court and researched by the presiding judge for information.

Please post links or emails of media outlets that you think may be interested in recieving this information. I will attach the actual judgment transcript Friday afternoon

 

[jberryhill]

I'm perfectly willing to let others have the last word. Anyone can watch the whois to determine that this domain name is not going to be transferred to Mr. Alek as a result of this ridiculous small claims proceeding.

The only thing I would suggest is:

But, I concider these trademark
lawyers to be a threat.

Dna, you should go back and look at the links I posted previously to cases where I represented UDRP respondents against TM claimants. You obviously have no idea what my record is in this area...

http://www.motorcyclist.com/JohnBerryhill.htm

 

[Dave_Z]

All of my domain names are very generic and no one has ever accused me of violating a trademark.

Unfortunately some of the bigger companies who have trademarks
don't think so and go after those who they believe infringe on their
TMs.

And hey, better be careful, dna. You never know: you might need
JB's services to deal with one. :bingo:

Just kidding!

 

[dna]

It appears that there are registrars that will support domain name
owners and maybe we all need to rethink using registrars that won't.

http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/people/edelman/udrp-compliance

 

[AdsenseGuy]

just for clarification

The NAF or UDRP dosnt specify what courts as you seem to think that small claims has no jurisdiction, anyways thats arguable the domain was only reged for a year and was transferred by ENOM without cause while it was under the courts jurisdiction once time became an issue these courts were the speediest alternative. But the ruling clearly states in Canadian english

"This is an action brought by the plaintiff, Steve Alek, against Google inc. for damages and for a declaration that he is the proper owner of the domain name, googleemail. The defendant , Google inc. did not enter a defence and is therefore deemed to admit the facts contained in the plaintiffs claim subject to an assessment of damages."

With all due respect Mr. Berryhill it states I am the proper owner of the domain. The domain in question is now under investigation and should be returned to the rightful owner as determined by the courts.

 

[wlspro]

Thanks for the clarification AG.

So what you are saying is:

1) UDRP does not specify jurisdiction of court for filing a complaint after its decision is published,
2) You did not commit perjury (lie under oath) when you told the court that under UDRP you could file a complaint anywhere in the world and this should stay the transfer of the domain name subject to the outcome of the court proceeding,
3) You did not perjure yourself when you told the court there was a character called Googlee Bear in Shrek,
4) The court determined that you are the rightful owner of the domain name googleemail.com,
4) The court ordered eNom to transfer the domain name back to you,
5) You do not have a continued and persistent pattern of registering domain names that incorporate the trademark of others (google411.com, yahoo411.com, msn411.com, ...),

This sounds fabulous, so what is the next step?

You say that “The domain in question is now under investigation”, what is there to investigate? Let me save you the time and expenses of the “investigation”.

The domain name’s present registration is readily available on the whois - indicating Google Inc., 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View CA, 94043, US as the owner and eMarkMonitor Inc., 12438 W. Bridger St, Suite 100, Boise, ID, 83713, US as the registrar.

Lets look once more at the court’s findings:

“Unfortunately, someone in ENOM unlocked the name in error and the defendant, Google Inc., then acquired the name making it unavailable to the plaintiff to reacquire. I make no decision in that regard as ENOM is not a party to these proceedings.”

“I make no decision in [regards to the fact that] Google Inc. … acquired the name making it unavailable to the plaintiff to reacquire”

Where does “I make no decision” in regards to Google’s acquisition of the domain name lead you to believe the deputy judge ordered eNom (which was specifically mentioned as not being a party to the proceedings) transfer the domain name to you?

 

[Badger]

Nice thread dna, I guess a cybersquatters heaven............ :blink:

 

[jberryhill]

The NAF or UDRP dosnt specify what courts as you seem to think that small claims has no jurisdiction

The UDRP most certainly does specify the jurisdiction. The Complainant is required to admit to one of at least two jurisdictions in the Complaint, at the time the Complaint is filed.

What part of UDRP 4(k) do you not understand:

We will then implement the decision unless we have received from you during that ten (10) business day period official documentation (such as a copy of a complaint, file-stamped by the clerk of the court) that you have commenced a lawsuit against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted under Paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure. (In general, that jurisdiction is either the location of our principal office or of your address as shown in our Whois database. See Paragraphs 1 and 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure for details.)

A lawsuit under 4(k) of the UDPR must be filed "in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted under Paragraph 3(b)(xiii) of the Rules of Procedure", otherwise the registrar is free to transfer the domain name. That's what the UDRP says. Where did your deputy judge get this "anywhere in the world" garbage? From you?

Whether you popped up in the middle of the proceeding and told everyone you were in Canada is, again, thoroughly irrelevant to the proper court under Rule 4(k), which is the court submitted to by the Complainant at the time the Complaint was filed. The registrant, at the beginning of the proceeding, was ostensibly in California in accordance with your false whois data. The registrar was in Washington. There is no way on earth that the Complainant selected Canada as the relevant mutual jurisdiction. In fact, when Michelle Schaber sends out a UDRP decision, she always reminds the parties of the selected mutual jurisdiction. You have that email. What did she say?

Now, let's address the concept of "competent jurisdiction" for a moment before getting to the substance of what was actually decided in this small claims court. Small claims courts resolve monetary claims up to specified limits. They do not decide issues of trademark non-infringement. A small claims court does not have the subject matter jurisdiction to decide a trademark case. That is a separate issue from personal jurisdiction over the parties which, as noted above, was also not present here.

Finally, on the question of "What did the court decide", it is obvious on its face that the claim was one of $610 in expenses you claimed to have laid out in order to obtain and operate the domain name. The mere fact that this amount was awarded for the "loss" of the domain name clearly indicates that it was not contemplated that you would be getting the domain name back. Where does the judge order the domain name returned to you?

 

[wlspro]

--- NEWS ---

Not happy with the coverage he got here at NP our friend has started a series of new "forum" sites, including one to compete with NamePros - with a very much similar format.

http://www.domainauctionforum.com/
http://www.adoptionhelpforum.com/
http://www.searchengineoptimizationforum.com/

and of interest to JB

http://www.legaladviceforum.com/

Interestingly he is relying exclusively on Google for his advertising revenue and registering the domain names through eNom affiliates

UPDATE

Our friend's sites are back up after a few days of outage.

 

[Grrilla]

Man, remind me not to get on your bad side, wlspro, although you probably wouldn't find much of interest to dig up on me. However, we all have our skeletons in the closet, don't we? Back when I was 11 or 12, my friends and I had a hiding spot in the woods where we used to smoke non-filtered camels, from time to time. I have never told that to anyone before.

 

[Badger]

WlsPro, either a, you are holding a grudge way to scary for me to think about or b, you have too much time on your hands. What is it??

Funny though nevertheless (he says in retrospect fearing that what he has said already may already be grounds for a full WlsPro life audit and subsequent disection)

:lol::blink:

 

[chelsea]

What a waste of time it was reading this thread !!!

John Berryhill has given help and legal advice for a very long time now elsewhere and most of us are probably happy to have him around here at NamePros now.

What I realize more and more is the "new" incivility and impoliteness in the forum and
-sorry- this mainly comes from new members.

While I hope that AG registered the domain name in no bad faith...I still doubt it.
Having made bad experiences with trademarks I nowadays prefer to contact the company that holds a trademark to be on the safe site.
Why would you willingly register a name that brings problems? Only to gain profit.
No good way from my point of view.

I do not agree with personal threats whatsoever and feel sorry for AG for that.

Please, everyone, let´s start behaving here at NamePros and anywhere else again.

 

[Mark]

chelsea - I agree with you for the most Part ~ I think the main thing about this Thread that bothers me Isn't Why the Domain was reg'd or What whois info was dug up (Big Deal !) .... What bothers me is A lot of the "new" Guys came here and Started Posting Personal Info etc ... In here !

I'm not saying they are right or Wrong with their little investigation - But guess what ? If Ag was just looking for Exposure as they Accuse ~ He got it ! For Free none the less and Everyone who's posted in here (Including Myself) has helped ~


As far as the Definition(s) of "BAD FAITH" ~ Doesn't Registering Any Domain (Trademarked or Not) in order to sell it to Someone Else fall under this Subject Somewhere ?

Hoping we can all Just Get back to a kinder ... gentler ... Forum here

PS - I usually would post "Cant we all just get along.com" is Available about now - But someone finally reg'd it - lol

 

[Jeff]

PS - I usually would post "Cant we all just get along.com" is Available about now - But someone finally reg'd it - lol

Hurry ... "wearetheworldwearethechildren.com" is available! :music:

Oh wait, isn't that a ™ violation?

Thanks, folks ... at this point in time, I think just about everything that's needed to be said here has been said, if I'm not mistaken ... fair enough if we wrap this up by the end of the weekend?
Appreciated, and thanks, too, for staying cool!
-Jeff :wave:

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Just as an update:
http://whois.domaintools.com/googleemail.com
Never ended up back with the "victor"

Score:
JBH: +1
Everyone else reading and (hopefully) learning a lot from JBH: +2

-Allan :gl: