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

 

[Grrilla]

LOL He is licensed to practice law in your state. a double whammy!

 

[wtfever]

Originally posted by jberryhill

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.

Can't raise my hand, because this has been a very enlightening thread. Thank you, jberryhill. Your honesty and tenacity are appreciated. These are very real issues, not to be thrown around lightly.
As for the bear...I am afraid you may be stuck with that $100, because he doesn't seem to exist. Hmmm.

 

[ZuraX]

*Raises my hand* I have learned nothing because I ignore all JB says because I dont want to hear his crap.

 

[Badger]

Just been to Dublin for the weekend and twas ruined cos i couldnt find an internet cafe to check up on the latest developments of this thread. Lol

Personally, for what its worth, I can find many positive and sometimes negative lessons to be learned from this thread: -

1. (as you Americans would metaphorically say) Do not EVER take Michael Jordan on at Basketball. Especially when your 4'11 tall.
2. When youre in a hole stop digging
3. Schadenfreud and gloating will always seek to undermine any victory achieved by a stronger party.
4. When your opponent is dead, stop kicking him.
5. Enjoy all the lovely NB$$ AdsenseGuy

And remember: - (as Rudyard Kipling wrote)

If you can keep your head while all about you are losing theirs and blaming it on you.

If you can trust yourself when all men doubt you, but make allowances for their doubting too.

If you can wait and not be tired by waiting, or being lied about, don't deal in lies ,

Or being hated, don't give way to hating,

And yet don't look too good, nor talk too wise.

If you can dream and not make dreams your master.

If you can think and not make thoughts your aim.

If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those imposters just the same.

If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken, twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools,

or watch the things you gave your life to broken, and scoop and build 'em up with worn out tools.

If you can make one heap of all your winnings and risk it on one turn of pitch and toss

and lose and start again at your beginnings and never breathe a word about your loss

If you can force your heart and nerve and sinew, to serve your turn long after they are gone

and so hold on when there is nothing in you except the will which says to them 'hold on!'

If you can talk with crowds and keep your virtue, or walk with kings nor lose the common touch

If neither foes nor loving friends can hurt you If all men count with you, but none too much

If you can fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds worth of distance run,

Yours is the world and everything that's in it and which is more, you'll be a man my son

 

[Martin23]

I cant believe any of you believe this story is true.

Do you relaly reckon google would not go to court to fight?

Jb everything you said made sense and he could not answer the questions you asked him.

 

[Dave_Z]

Only one way to find out!

Oops, AdsenseGuy, I guess your cat's out of the bag!
(no offense meant).

All in all, I think this will be a good thing. Despite the
"absurdity" and possible costs incurred in pursuing
such a venture (and if it reaches its legal and logical
conclusion), this will definitely make things more
specific.

And make us all the more wiser! (I hope...)

JBH, keep up the posts!

 

[rb]

*Raises my hand* I have learned nothing because I ignore all JB says because I dont want to hear his crap.

I thought the personal attacks were over in this thread?

I am curious though, what exactly has been "crap" about what JB has posted?

This has been a VERY interesting thread all the way around. Glad to see it wasn't banned or deleted.

 

[Dave_Z]

Originally posted by rb
I thought the personal attacks were over in this thread?

I am curious though, what exactly has been "crap" about what JB has posted?

This has been a VERY interesting thread all the way around. Glad to see it wasn't banned or deleted.

There'll always be personal attacks as long as people
take things personally.

Some people think JBH's posts are crap while others
think otherwise. It's just a matter of opinion.

And it can't be helped some are more opinionated
than others. But we're all more or less intelligent
enough to know what's right and wrong. :D

 

[jberryhill]

My posts may be crap, but at least my cash is green. And time is running out for the first person to claim $100 in the "find the bear" contest. The contest closes at 11:59 PM eastern tomorrow (after which I will be away for a few days)

I've been wrong before - for example, I have been corrected that the girl in Monsters Inc. calls the large monster "kitty".

"*Raises my hand* I have learned nothing because I ignore all JB says"

Then how could you have known to raise your hand?

 

[QBert]

"If there is a Googly bear, then he is a perfectly fine bear." love it :D

im trying to crack this one as we speek, love your posts, as long as no one gets raged up over this thread :$ Very well thought out. congrads

QBert

 

[dna]

Google is hardly an internet novice. If they truly believed
that Googlee was their trademark, they would of allready
registered it.

And second:

Googlee can be concidered a satirical phrasing of Google
and as such, it is protected by the first admendment.
Trademarks don’t protect companies from satire.

And third:

Google has become a dictionary word. To google
means to look something up on the internet.
And as a dictionary word, the trademark is invalidated.

I have no doubt that if AdsenseGuy had the resources
he would win this in court. I also find your attacks
on AdsenseGuy to be sleazy and irrelevant. And
no one needs to find any bear Everything
you are saying is nonsense.

 

[armstrong]

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=google

That dictionary defines 'google' only in the context of google.com the website. I believe google's TM can't be invalidated by mere inclusion in the dictionary after the TM is granted.

Still, your arguments have more credibility than the 'googlee bear' scenario. Why didn't adsenseguy use them instead, I wonder?

 

[Badger]

I hope you know your onions dna for if you are wrong or are simply specualting on TM law you know who'll get ya........


Anyway adsenseguy isnt worried, hes almost made enough NB$$ from this thread alone to pay his legal council....

 

[dna]

Google and googling are commonly used verbs and this is all
it takes to put them in the public domain. And that means
anyone can use them. They will eventually show up in your favorite dictionary. It really doesn't matter what jberryhill says.
A lawyer will argue that the earth is flat if you pay him to do so.

 

[jberryhill]

"Google is hardly an internet novice. If they truly believed
that Googlee was their trademark, they would of allready
registered it. "

This is a variation of the blame-the-victim defense. Nobody is required to register geometric permutations of their trademark as a domain name. If you register coca-cola-email.com, Coca-Cola would be justifiably concerned that the name might be used to provide a service associated with or endorsed by them. Does this mean that Coca-Cola has to run out and register that domain name? No, it does not.

"Googlee can be concidered a satirical phrasing of Google
and as such, it is protected by the first admendment.
Trademarks don’t protect companies from satire."

Satire consists of some sort of commentary on the subject being satirized. For example, the use of amberzombie.com was upheld in connection with a website making a commentary on mindless teen fashion consciousness - i.e. zombies to fashion trends. What sort of satire is using "googleemail" to provide an email service?

" it is protected by the first admendment. "

I really need to catch up on the news. I was aware that we'd gone into Afghanistan and Iraq, but this is the first I've heard about the U.S. takeover of Canada.

Perhaps the judge was so impressed that he forgot that many Canadians fancy themselves to live outside of the United States and its Constitution.

"Google has become a dictionary word. To google
means to look something up on the internet.
And as a dictionary word, the trademark is invalidated."

Yes, and many people use the word "Xerox" as a verb meaning to photocopy, to speak of a "Band-Aid" approach to solving problems, or refer to a tissue generally as a "Kleenex". Nonetheless, these trademarks are regularly enforced, and have not been invalidated.

Lucasfilm Ltd. v. High Frontier, 622 F. Supp. 931 (D.D.C. 1985), is a good example on this point. Whether a trademark takes on a meaning in another context than use AS a trademark - a designator of origin of goods and services - is totally irrelevant to whether one retains the trademark. A good summary is here:


http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?yr=96&num=1981&Submit1=Request+Opinion
-----
The producer
of the movie trilogy "Star Wars" tried unsuccessfully to
prevent public interest groups from using in their adver-
tisements opposing President Reagan's Strategic Defense
Initiative (an anti-missile program) the term "star wars"
to denote the SDI. In the course of rejecting the pro-
ducer's claim, the court remarked that the use of the term
"Star Wars" to denote the SDI would not prevent the pro-
ducer from using the term "in connection with goods and
services." 622 F. Supp. at 935. All that this can sensibly
mean is not that Lucasfilm retained the exclusive right to
use the term in connection with any and all goods and services,
an issue not remotely before the court, but that
it remained free to use its trademark "Star Wars" to
designate the movies and the merchandise associated with
them.
------

It's not really clear what you are driving at with "And as a dictionary word, the trademark is invalidated." Apple is a dictionary word. Are you suggesting it is not a trademark for a brand of computer?

Or is your point that "Google" is no longer viewed as distinctive of internet services, and that any internet service, such as email, can be called "Google" by anyone, and nobody will assume that the service has something to do with the folks at Google.com? That would require some interesting survey evidence of relevant consumers.

Another good example is "realtor". People use that trademark of the National Association of Realtors a LOT, without even knowing it is one. Nevertheless, they prevailed over an attempt to invalidate it just two months ago.

"A lawyer will argue that the earth is flat if you pay him to do so."

Not under Federal Rule 11 he won't. But, what is the need for argument? The reason for this thread is to spread notice far and wide of this important legal precedent which was set in this remarkably speedy proceeding in Canada.

Since the judge has made himself and his office available for media inquiries, and since the decision itself shows no imminent signs of being published, perhaps if we knew how this judge is supposed to be contacted by the media, we can ask Duke from dnjournal, or some people I know at Cnet, the WSJ, the Register, and CircleID to contact the judge and ask him how these complex issues were resolved in a single sitting, and what was the basis for the decision.

 

[Badger]

did try and warn ya dna!

lol

And a question for you JB, what possesses you to give so much to this thread which, in essence, is only a busmans holiday for you. And an unpaid one at that?

 

[lotsofissues]

Originally posted by AdsenseGuy


Mole: Ambulance chasers must go where the action is.

Pre-eminent URL attorney out there!

 

[jberryhill]

And a question for you JB, what possesses you to give so much to this thread which, in essence, is only a busmans holiday for you. And an unpaid one at that?

Good golly. I've been participating in online discussions of various topics since the early days of USENET newsgroups back in the mid-1980's, and I've never had my motives questioned as many times as in this thread.

Here's a post from nearly 14 years ago on sci.skeptic, arguing with some "perpetual motion machine" hucksters (speaking of flat-earthers...):
http://groups.google.com/[email protected]&output=gplain

So the question of "why is a lawyer engaging in silly debates on the internet"? has the chicken and the egg reversed. Am I allowed to have fun?

 

[lotsofissues]

Originally posted by ZuraX
*Raises my hand* I have learned nothing because I ignore all JB says because I dont want to hear his crap.

You probably never tried listening.

 

[dna]

The right to go out and register coca-cola-sucks.com, or any
other such coca-cola domain that is available, is a right
that is protected by the first admendment of the United States.
I don’t know why you are rambling on about the “U.S.
takeover of Canada” and about Afgahanistan and Iraq.

What you call “geometric permutations of their trademark”
are what most of us would call unregistered domain names.
And if every company claimed the “geometric permutations”
of their trademarks there wouldn’t be any domains names
available to the rest of us.

And if you go to whois.net and search on keyword google
you will see that there are thousands “geometric permutations”
of Google’s trademark that are not owned by Google.
I guess Google doesn’t want to steal any of those names.

And when you say that a company “prevailed over an attempt
to invalidate” a trademark, this could just mean that they
reached a settlement so as to not further risk their trademark.
This is what Apple Computer did.

And do you deny that trademarks expire because they become
part of the language (dictionary words)?

I am happy to hear that Federal Rule 11 is keeping you honest.
And thank you for telling me the reason for the “thread.”
I thought it had been started by Adsenseguy.