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

 

[AdsenseGuy]

The site was live from the day we regged it until march 30 2004

http://googleemail.mail.everyone.net/email/scripts/loginuser.pl

I can also paste all the user info as well which was also brought into evidence in court. The above URL was where googleemail.com went too before ENOM carelessly gave it away while it was under court order to stay in my possession.

 

[rb]

It would be interesting to see what everyone.net's actual records were (server records).

I have an everyone.net free email service account with 1000's of users, and I can say that it takes longer than a few months to build that many.

You can also add users manually (not saying that you did), but it does seem weird that no record of the site exists for such a site with a large base of users.

Even on that page you linked to you have it spelled as Googleemail instead of GooGleeMail.

Which character on Shrek was that again?

 

[e39m5]

GoogLeeBear!

lol, its the same spelling, just your saying it one way and hes saying it another

 

[AdsenseGuy]

RB: forgive me for sounding blunt but i have already had the case heard by the courts and they have ruled on it. I will be posting the transcript as soon as I have a copy of it, You and everyone else are free to read the ruling and come up with your own conclusions.

I spent 5 hours on the witness stand yesterday answering questions and giving evidence. I do not feel obliged to do so all over again here. Sure I agree with you that the public may have one perception of the verdict but its what the courts say that matters. Dont berate me for taking the initiative and $$$$ to take on this fight, IMHO it was worth the battle either way fortunately the courts decided in my favor.

All I can say to you is that the site existed, there was 4261 members, and it was one of the bears in the movie his name was GooGlee

As for the time frame it took you to get XXXX of members I cannot comment on, but my domain had no problems

 

[Terry]

One atta boy here, AdsenseGuy. I'm sure one of the first things the Judge took into account was your good faith.

 

[Dave_Z]

Hmmm....me thinks the issue here is....bad faith?

Isn't bad faith supposed to refer to registering the
domain name, with the intention of making money
out of it, by exploiting the name & goodwill of an
existing and well known entity?

Is that why some people disagree here? If so,
that depends on the intentions of the person who
first got the domain name.

We can question it all we want. But as long as
Adsenseguy knows what he intended to from
start to finish, that's his choice.

But on the whole, I hate to see big companies
use the UDRP to force people or small organizations
to fork over their domain names that may or
may not necessarily sound similar to theirs, just
because they have the big bucks and are selfish
enough to get them regardless of their intentions
on how to use them.

True those companies have the right to protect
themselves. But what about those who NEVER
intended to profit from a well-known brand's
name commercially?

Like fan sites? Hobby sites?

The list goes on and on.

Also, I'd like to see some changes to the current
UDRP for reverse hijackings. They oughta make
them pay those who really can't afford it.

Just my thoughts on the matter.

 

[rb]

Dont berate me for taking the initiative and $$$$ to take on this fight, IMHO it was worth the battle either way fortunately the courts decided in my favor.

If you post in a public forum, you are bound to get varied opinions posted.

Most of the opinions have been favorable (those comments you don't seem to mind), mine opinion happens to be that your intent seems shady. I feel I have the right to post that just as the others have posted their opinions.

Moderators are free to remove my posts if they think my opinion is unwarranted or not welcome here.

You are under no obligation to give any "evidence" to anyone here.

I've seen Shrek way too many times, I don't think there was a GooGlee bear. Maybe in Monster's Inc, but not Shrek. I could be wrong though.

It should be interesting to see the actual transcript of the case.

It sounds like something that Google could win on appeal

 

[Dave_Z]

With the money google has, it can very well afford
to.

But for now, the judge's current decision takes the
cake.

We'll see how it goes in the next few months (or
years).

Hmmm, not sure but depending on the timing, Enom
may have done the right thing transferring it to
google. But it depends on when that happened,
either when the UDRP was concluded, or when
the court case began.

 

[AdsenseGuy]

Enom Mistakenly released the domain while under court order to remain in care and control of the domain until all court action had been completed. Documentation provided into evidence of these facts.

RB: as far as your comments and opinions I am not in any way trying to avoid your comments but I did put up with lawyers that tried to do the exact same thing, They even implied similar comments in open court, Thus was not the case in the judges opinion. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion but i also believe that one also reserves the right to refuse comment on any questions or remarks made or implied of ones character or intentions. No matter what comments are made at this point is irrelevant, It was ordered that I am the rightful owner of this domain, That ENOM is responsible to get it back in my possession immediately, and what i choose to do with it is completely up to myself.

Transcript to be posted when it is available

 

[Badger]

I have to say, reading all the posts, fair play to adsense guy for 1 taking on the nasty big conglomorate and 2 going on to win.

I must also say that googleebear might wanted to have created an email based website in his own name like perhaps googleebearemail rather than googleemail. The bear thing seems to have been convenienty overlooked. And i think we all know where you were coming from adsenseguy when you regged the name.

Still funny though.

 

[Shannara]

I can host!

I have a nice server with SM, and can host the papers on the net if you like. Send the scans, I'll PDF them and host them, and provide a URL.

You can also head over to http://www.slashdot.com with your story, they had another recent underdog victory against google, concerning froggle.com. The underdog won

Post the bugger, lemme know if your interested in a host, since I can definately take the slashdotting

 

[jaydub]

Hey AdsenseGuy

I would take it to Ron Jackson. He is a member here by the name of Duke.
He is the owner of Domain Name Journal.
http://www.dnjournal.com.
I'm sure you know who he is.
I bet he would be thrilled to help out & he has many industry friends.
I would PM him & let him know.

Nice work AG.

Jim

 

[AdsenseGuy]

Hey thanks Jaydub I didnt know that info

I am planning on posting the PDF's on all relevant sites that will take it

 

[bensontwenty]

AdsenseGuy - I seem to remember that you work for Google - is that right. If so, have they not made you sign an Intellectual Property agreement. If not, fair play then but if they have, how do you get round that. I work for an huge multinational and whilst I am allowed to do what I like, any inventions, creations, processes, in fact anything really that is to do with the company's core business that I am responsible for automatically become the property of the company if they are within the same field. Anything I do outside my company's field belongs to me - this is a pretty standard agreement in large company's and I would have thought that Google would have one - especially as they are about to float on the stockmarket - someone correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is required for listed company's.

Anyway - just had that thought as I was reading through but it really rests on the thinking that you do work for google

 

[Rikkers]

I think you deserve credit for having the balls (& the bucks) to take up the fight. However, like most people here, I have my doubts about why you regged the name!

As for publicity, I would suggest the news agencies. I'm sure the likes of Reuters would welcome a press release on the subject, especially with the IPO making headlines right now. Once the pros get hold of a juicy story you can be sure they will syndicate it further & more quickly than you ever could.

Good luck with the battle against the registrars involved - they should be made to compensate you for taking the easy option & siding with the big boys.

I for one look forward to reading the transcripts.

 

[csmaster2005]

wow adsense guy, I am very impressed. This is very good news... I'm sure this domain must already be getting a bunch of traffic

 

[AdsenseGuy]

CSmaster, Thank you and thanks to all that have made comments, I wouldnt be able to guees what kind of traffic the domain is getting as i am now in the process of notifying all involved of the recent judgment. Hopefully there will be no further issues in me getting my domain back into my possession.

 

[jberryhill]

For anyone wanting to think a bit deeper on this...

Here is the UDRP decision:
http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/232960.htm
"Respondent contends that it has a legitimate interest in the domain name and has not acted in bad faith since the domain name in question is merely the derivative of a character in the movie Shrek named “GooGleeBear.”"

Let's start with some facts.

Question 1 - What Bear?

Here is the script for Shrek:
http://shrekscript.onlysomuch.com/

Show me a bear in there with a name anything like "googly" or "googlee". Or, show me anything establishing the existence of such a bear in Shrek. I'm not saying it's not there, but I'll be darned if I can find it.

Now in the movie Monsters Inc., "Googly Bear" is a nickname used between the monster, Mike Wazowski, and Celia the receptionist:

http://www.pathea.com/pixar/2000/mo...sis/index.shtml
"At the Monsters, Inc. front desk Mike and Celia the receptionist, greet each other with such names as Googly Bear."

If I recall correctly, even the little girl starts calling the large monster "Googly Bear" - in Monsters Inc. That sure ain't Shrek. I guess Google's team of lawyers didn't bother to check.

Question 2 - Who is this person?

"Respondent is -googleemail a/k/a googleemail.com, 666 Screw You Lane, Bite Me, CA 90210 (“Respondent”)"

Indeed, as of January 7, the whois was:

Name: googleemail .com
Email: [email protected]
Organization: -googleemail
Address: 666 Screw You Lane
City: Bite Me
State: CA
Postal Code: 90210

Riiiiight. This guy, at "Screw You Lane" was providing email service to "thousands of kids", and not a single one of those email addresses ever left a trace findable on the web or on usenet, and didn't leave a trace in archive.org either.

Question 3 - What court is this in?

The UDRP decision was rendered March 30, 2004. This guy says he spent "5 hours on the witness stand yesterday" and "giving evidence". So this went from a court filing to trial in four months. They went through pre-trial motions, discovery, depositions, etc., had hearings and rulings on those issues (and Google never filed a motion for summary judgment), and got to trial in four months.

Let me give you an idea how awesomely impressive that is...

Gang, the barcelona.com UDRP was rendered on August 4, 2000. The domain registrant filed suit on August 18, 2000. A bench trial (trial by a judge) was held during the week of 9/11/01 (I recall the trial attorney telling me about transportation problems from Texas), and a decision on the EDVA's famous "rocket docket" was rendered on February 22, 2002.

But this guy gets a trial in less time than it normally takes to get a scheduling conference. Not only that, he testifies for "five hours" and then "The judge clearly and decisively covered all aspects concerning this ruling even more so than I expected" on the very same day. That's pretty impressive, considering that with a 9AM start, a one-hour break for lunch, and no other recesses, it was 3PM before the judge apparently issued a lengthy decision and a set of orders, orally no less, from the bench.

And this on top of "Namepros was brought up in court and researched by the presiding judge for information." Wow. Who needs lawyers when the judge goes off on his own search for evidence? Whatta guy! I mean, after listening to only one witness until 3 PM, the judge then goes off on his own for, say, a half hour at least digging through a web forum... leaving maybe 45 minutes for the other side to put on a case before the judge makes up his mind and starts opining away at, what, 4:30 PM, right?

The expert witnesses one would normally have at a trademark trial were, let me guess, speed-talkers? Or maybe the judge just did his own trademark research as well.

Ah... but here is why Google didn't have any witnesses or any evidence to present: "I will be sending ENOM and Google a copy of the transcript" - Apparently, Google must not have been there, since he has to send them an account of what happened. Odd thing for the defendant not to show up.

Odder still for a judge not to issue written orders, such that the judge's oral orders must be deduced from a transcript of the proceedings. But, clearly, if this judge can get a case to trial in four months, and do his own research for evidence, it is obviously no problem for him to simply dictate orders from the bench, still get out by 5 PM, and say "Just go by the transcript" on the way out.

So we are expected to believe that a judge anywhere looked at Namepros, and found a guy with "AdSense" - a Google trademark in his username - who is also selling the domain name "gmailtrader.com" - a reference to Google's email service, and this otherwise amazingly efficient judge determined that the guy at "Screw You Lane" was really just doing it for the kids.

Riii...iight.

Not only was this a very fast judge, but the existence of this case somehow doesn't manage to show up on the PACER docket of either the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California - the jurisdiction relevant to federal trademark claims where Google is - the USDC for the Western District of Washington - where Enom is - or the USDC for the Central District of California - where the 90210 zip code of the "registrant" is.

Is there something folks are reading in this astounding story that perhaps I am missing?

--
John B. Berryhill Ph.D. esq.
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

 

[mole]

Originally posted by jberryhill
Is there something folks are reading in this astounding story that perhaps I am missing?

I think the issue was that eNom went overboard to yank the name from the owner and should therefore return it, and not really that the motives for registering the name are questionable - although both points are debatable AND questionable.

 

[jberryhill]

I get that part of it. UDRP Section 4(k) requires the registrar to maintain the lock if a suit is filed, absolutely. However, the story told by "AdSenseGuy" makes about zero sense.

Forget all of my other questions, just identify the court and the case number in which these amazing events transpired. That should only take a moment.