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

 

[aww]

jberryhill, since you clearly are an attorney by profession, can you clarify if your strong interest in this case is personal curiosity or is it of professional importance to other work/clients you are involved with?

 

[jberryhill]

jberryhill, since you clearly are an attorney by profession, can you clarify if your strong interest in this case is personal curiosity or is it of professional importance to other work/clients you are involved in?

A very fair question. I have no professional interest in this matter and I am not acting on behalf of any client.

My interest here is fairly simple. I have represented good faith, legitimate domain registrants in dozens of domain name disputes against over-reaching trademark claimants. You will, for example, note in the links to sample decisions I posted above that they include two findings of reverse domain name hi-jacking.

In that list, I left out one of my favorite pro bono engagements:

http://www.citizen.org/pressroom/release.cfm?ID=1125

"The Rev. Jerry Falwell today lost his bid to silence a critic who created a Web site that uses Falwell’s name in its address and parodies the reverend’s statements."
[...]
"Also, Public Citizen thanks Philadelphia lawyer John Berryhill for his assistance in defending this case."

If you don't like freedom of speech, then you'll just have to deal.

Having defended numerous legitimate domain registrants who have been unfairly accused, I can tell you that the behavior of some people in these matters, and their tenuous connection with a little thing called "truth", generates a responsive attitude on the part of UDRP claimants, and some panelists, that results in extreme skepticism toward defendants in these cases. It makes the job harder.

Secondly, one thing that lawyers are encouraged to do is to participate in public discussion of legal issues for educational purposes. Anyone who hasn't learned something in this thread, please raise your hand.

However, aww, I DO have a financial interest here. I am at risk of losing $100 over the veracity of AdSenseGuy's story. I will admit up front that I am fallible. I've been wrong before, and, who knows, maybe I'm wrong now.

So, it's simple. Find a bear, win $100, and embarass a pompous Philadelphia lawyer. Are you game?

Oh, and, I almost forgot. Anonymous people who seek to get legal FUD published by the media just prior to an IPO have this really odd tendency to end up seeing the world from between bars, in case anyone is still wondering what this is all really about.

 

[aww]

If you don't like freedom of speech, then you'll just have to deal.

I thrive on freedom of speech as I am an amatuer journalist. However I also feel it's the duty of the public to discourage the dark side of such a right (hate speech, mud slinging, etc).

I've actually seen your comments on other boards and have learned things from them, so in that regard I thank you. You definitely have knowledge and experience to share.

However accepting that this is only a personal interest, you certainly are putting alot of time and effort into it, and now money (admittedly a very safe bet, but you did introduce it as a kind of bounty).

Can't you seperate your issue with the manner and attitude in how this was presented. from the person themself that did it? By this I mean instead of making it a personal attack, present your valuable knowledge in a way of showing how this kind of announcement should have been done.

You seem to have two seperate issues with this whole deal.
1. the decision itself
2. how it was presented here

Why don't you give us by positive example, how you feel this should have been done?

 

[Grrilla]

I have removed my post pending further development of the scenario.

 

[Sharpy]

For those of you who do not frequent the other forums, you could not possibly know how much help jberryhill is to domainers in regards to legal matters.(free most often) We should be very pleased he has joined NP.

Edit: and yes I had the shrek avatar long before this thread

 

[Grrilla]

I frequent other forums, do not know jberryhill, and can only respond to what I have read here. Welcome to the forum jberryhill.

 

[jberryhill]

"As Don Henley wrote"

Thank you for reminding me of that one:
http://www.don-henley.com/domain/berryhill.htm

As mole and rb noted very early on, the facts of this domain dispute, and the gaping holes in the logic here, do not reflect well on domainers.

How relevant is it, really, that Googlee is a character from Monster Ball and not from Shrek? Your critics certainly must consider this a central issue, judging by the number of times the question was brought up, for the sole purpose, as far as I can tell, of discrediting you and your story.

How relevant is it? This bear character is offered as the motivation for having registered the domain name. Otherwise, one might readily assume that one of the most well-known internet companies "Google" was combined with one of the most commonly used internet functions "email", to come up with the domain name.

Since that was the defense presented in the UDRP proceeding, do you think that Google - who can pay platoons of lawyers big bucks to prepare for a trial - might just have bothered to check that out if they actually went to a trial knowing that it was going to be a central allegation of someone's reason for registering a domain name?

And it's not a question of "five hours" versus even one hour. Trademark lawsuits, even in Canada, do not operate like traffic court.

Having been brought here in response to this person's request for widespread publicity, try to think of the "positive way to do this" when the "this" has a very strong aroma of what in the US can be a criminal offense - i.e. an anonymous person seeking to obtain media attention for a dubious story about a legal dispute involving a company on the verge of an IPO.

Hold on, we might have a winner! Sharpy, what's that behind your head?

 

[Grrilla]

I catch your drift jb, and may have taken a bad aim. I'm not retracting my post, but would prefer that it be viewed as generic, and not as an indictment of, or a reference to any of the posters in this thread. I need to look at some of the minutiae myself, so that I can take a look at the larger picture.:lol:

Ah, what the heck. I'm going to take the entire post out, lest I end up w/ foot in mouth.

 

[Matt]

VERY good post and VERY interesting read. I am by no means a lawyer and am not going to make any statement. I do feel there are holes in some of the arguements.

However, I think this is VERY informative and am now on my way out to find that dastardly bear /me need $100 for more domains .. lol

p.s. Welcome to NP JB. you may be getting a legal pm from me sometime Do you accept np$ as payment..lol

Rgds
Matt

p.s. 20 mins searching, and this is the best I've found so far.
http://www.cutiekewpie.com/othercuties/googlybear.htm

 

[Redleg]

After 30 sec of searching, this was the best I found.. :lol:

http://www.pathea.com/pixar/2000/monstersinc/synopsis/index.shtml
6th and 7th paragraph...

Edit:
googly bear
googlee bear
Googlybear
Googleebear

 

[domaindude]

Thanks for the information NP members,

AdSenseGuy - Way to stand up to the big guys! - Kept up the good work!

Welcome to NamePros jB (typical lawyer - please don't take that the wrong way - cause my best friend is a lawyer of 20 years - and he said that your comments are in line with what a lawyer would ask!

Whether I agree with your comments or not, I definitely respect your opinion! ( I only do this as a hobby. )

Out 4 NOW!
Thanks 4 listening
domaindude

 

[Grrilla]

I am all for the "little guy" standing up to the "big guy" regarding disputes over TM rights. Because I am one of the little guys, my tendency is to have a natural bias weighed to the side of the underdog. Therefore I have to remind myself that the little guy is not always making legitimate claims.

Coincidentally, I recently agreed to transfer 3 Google related names to Google per their request and will do so in 60 days, after the hold for new registrations ends. I think it is important to note that I was not coerced nor did I receive threats or warnings of any kind. I learned of the problem after an online auction for the names had been pulled. I contacted them, they gave me their side of the story, their concerns, and I agrred w/ them and complied w/ their requests. This was my first endeavor into the area of risky TM registrations, and hopefully the last. In my heart of hearts, my intentions, though justifiable, were not pure.

Intentions aside, I believe that there continue to be some unanswered questions here, and would caution other members not to prematurely jump to conclusions and "take sides" in this debate, until all the facts are in and the big picture becomes clear. I nearly made this mistake, (as evidenced by the above post that I have removed), but now prefer to keep an open mind.

After doing a little homework, I do find it curious that jberryhill, who has a history of supporting the little guy against the attacks of greedy companies, is taking the side of the company in this debate. Regardless, this is a very thought provoking discussion, and I look forward to further input and acquiring more insight and possibly drawing some of my own conclusions in the matter.

 

[CWDigital]

this whole internet thing is actually kinda funny...its like we sometimes forget we are all really on the same team and who would want someone else riding on their coat-tails? Step back and put yourself in their shoes..obviously this is a tricky situation but I would have to side with Google as much as I am for the "underdog" almost 99.9% of the time...it starts with their name and they are rightfully entitled to it, you cant base a legal decision on a movie character from Shrek! Maybe it's the producer of Shreks rightful domain then? lol

 

[Acroplex]

Consider yourself lucky, Adsense, because clearly the domain is a "Google Email" composite; any attempt to invent googlee bears sounds as artificial as aspartame. Maybe the judge was drunk?

 

[Dave_Z]

Originally posted by aww
jberryhill, since you clearly are an attorney by profession, can you clarify if your strong interest in this case is personal curiosity or is it of professional importance to other work/clients you are involved with?

Doesn't really matter, aww. He's worked with a lot
of registrants in their domain dispute cases.

Based on reading his threads in here & other forums
I frequent, using the word "impressive" is an
understatement to describe him. :]

Of course, he can choose to take part of discussions
here or not. But he's definitely more than welcome
to take part, especially with the knowledge and/or
opinions he can share regarding this.

Despite the advances made on the internet and
domain names, there are still many issues
surrounding domain names that need to be dealt
with, especially ownership disputes.

But like life, we take things one step at a time. :hehe:

 

[wlspro]

Hey dude, what’s the story with registering the domain names embassysuiteniagara.com and 1800hiltons.com? Which cartoon character was the inspiration for these?

You may also want to renew your domain names google411.com, yahoo411.com and msn411.com - all registered by you presumably based on famous Disney cartoon characters. These registrations are expiring next week on August 18. Good thing Yahoo and Microsoft did not file a UDRP complaint against you for these domains - if they had you would also have filed a successful law suit against them in Canada.

I was very impressed with the press release by your company Links411.com on Wednesday, April 2, 2003 in which you personally state: “Links411.com is likely the biggest virtual mall on earth” and your Director of Public Relations, Jane Wilcox states that “In the first 21 days the site received over 1,000,000 hits” - this is absolutely wonderful success.

See http://www.free-press-release.com/news/200304/1049308074.html

I was even more impressed when you announced that

“Links411 Corporation has acquired google411.ca, google411.com, yahoo411.ca, yahoo411.com, msn411.ca, and msn411.com to continue its pursuit of "Simplifying the Internet."
Steve Alek, president and chief executive officer, said, "We are very excited about our acquisitions as they strengthen our company's commitment to make the Internet work for people in the simplest way."
…
Links411 Corporation will announce at a later date the intended launch dates for the newest acquisitions to its family of web sites.”

See http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3601/is_50/ai_109133675

By your “acquisitions” were you referring to registering the domain names?

And what is the story with your registration of the domain name adsensetalk.com, nbc2004olympics.com …? How many portals are you operating: livenewswire.com, adsensetalk.com, forumsnchats.com, americavotes2004cnn.com,…? You can certainly recycle traffic through these considerably and improve search engine rankings this way.

By the way you have forgotten to hide the registrant information of some of your domain names and you may want to activate the id Protect feature of eNom’s registration for them so that your identity can be better hidden. As you know your favorite registrar, Namecheap (an eNom affiliate) offers this same feature as well. Some of your domains still show detailed information as follows:

[personal details removed - armstrong]

As your idols at attrition.org have argued disclosure of such publicly available information is entirely proper in an open forum.

See whois for links411.com, fallsviewhoteldeals.com, google411.com, yahoo411.com, msn411.com, and all others mentioned above.

Then again I may be wrong and trust AdsenseGuy and JB will correct my errors.

 

[jberryhill]

"I do find it curious that jberryhill, who has a history of supporting the little guy against the attacks of greedy companies, is taking the side of the company in this debate."

Having heard elsewhere of an important legal development announced in this forum, my reaction was that of having been jerked around.

Also, during, say, gas station robberies, I tend to support the greedy company.

 

[Matt]

lol.. I sense some Bitterness JB :S

PErsonally, I find your comments very well thought out and informative.
If we did have a sensible "legal" situation, are we ok to contact u via pm?

Rgds
Matt

 

[CWDigital]

this is definitely a "lets see how far I can push the envelope" case..

 

[ZuraX]

I think as long as jberryhill has an account here I am going to stay away. Someone email me when he is gone.