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]

No. We're working to get it to you as fast as we can. Normally, you'd have to wait 3 months for it because that's how backed up we are. Hopefully, the beginning of the week now. Jane
----- Original Message -----
From:
To: Jane Buick
Sent: Friday, August 06, 2004 4:07 PM
Subject: Re: Transcript ( )vs Google inc # 04-011566-00


Hi Jane

Any word yet on these transcript doc's

Best Regards

Jberryhill: Here you go again making accusations without merit or fact please supply my contact info if the accusations you make above are in fact authored by myself for all i know you wrote that trash. Dude stop wasting my time. You wish you had the expertise to do what I have done. And from the articles i have read about you, your a piece of work. Does this ring any bells, I see you were very effective in getting this shut down back in 2000 , lemme guess your still working on it right...Good job

http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/2000/01/21/www.mms.gov/

http://www.attrition.org/postal/z/legal/john_berryhill/

http://www.attrition.org/postal/z/legal/john_berryhill/update/

WLS: I can only go on what the courts are telling me, they said friday and I have contacted them for a more defined date see above.

 

[Rikkers]

WOW this is like having a front row seat at a heavyweight title fight!

Keep the arguments coming .... I woudn't like to predict the outcome of this one.

 

[AdsenseGuy]

The outcome has already been determined I won, Google lost, and Jberryhill is looking for some much needed attention

 

[dna]

I see that jberryhill has been a member since way back
in August 2004. I wonder who he works for?
Tell me Jberryhill, do you have any opinions of your own
or all all your opinions for sale?

If Google want to challenge the ownership of a domain name,
let them do so using legitimate means. I sure don't
want any of my domain names listed at a registrar that
can be bullied into giving them away. I want my
rights protected and Adsenseguy has done all domain name
owners a service by challengin Enom's cowardly
behavier. And no one is payin me to have an opinion.

 

[AdsenseGuy]

Thank You DNA

Most people like jberryhil have missed the point, If you ever had a UDRP case brought forth against you and then decided to file court action. The domain must remain the property of the registrant until said proceedings are finished. In this case ENOM flagrantly disreguarded a court order and gave the domain in question away. But i am not done yet because of individuals like jberryhill I will make it my mission to now see ENOM is brought into court to answer for their action in this case if they fail to get me my domain back in a timely fashion. Lets say by August 21st.

As far as Jberryhill goes these people always join a forum looking for attention. Where has he been prior to this not here. I will no longer waste my time answering any of his ridiculous questions or statements, after reading about this individual on other websites I am concerned about ones mental state.

 

[jberryhill]

Don't ask me, JB, it was your friends at the USPTO who granted them the trademark registration for "educational services"

Which is a very good and relevant point. In ex parte proceedings of any kind, including for example default court proceedings, it is possible for people to get away with all sorts of shenanigans, because there is no one there to call you on it.

No. We're working to get it to you as fast as we can. Normally, you'd have to wait 3 months for it because that's how backed up we are.

Again, what an amazing court. It issues orders orally, and then the burden is on you to get transcripts. Simply fascinating.

How is your workload relevant to the speed at which you can get a document from a court or a transcription service?

please supply my contact info if the accusations you make above are in fact authored by myself

Steve, you won't even identify yourself here. But, yes folks, I admit it. Back in January I posted that stuff on geek.com because my psychic told me that in July, a pseudonymous snake-oil salesman would be bragging about his great legal precedent.

Just how do you suppose that on January 30, 2004, someone besides you would have known that a site named Googleemail.com had received a cease and desist letter from Google?

And if you weren't that person who posted that message in January, then it is simply astounding that the contact email address for googleemail.com was "[email protected]", and this imposter signed himself "Bitemegoogle". It is further postively stunning that they said they would re-direct to Booble.com, and that is what the UDRP decision says happened at your site during the proceeding.

Truly an astounding set of coincidences. Are you sure the imposter wasn't one of your other personalities?

Dude stop wasting my time.

Dude, I asked you three questions. I put numbers in front of them to make them easily identifiable. You answered half of one question.

How long does it take to type your name, identify this bear, and state the province in Canada where the case was?

I would like to add another one, though:

4. Who were the parties and did anyone besides you show up?

How much time can that possibly take to answer? You are the one who wants news of this important development to hit the internet "like wildfire". Don't you think that at some point someone might want to know who you are?




And, yes, they took my credit card number off of their website, and the person responsible - Mr. Doug Word - was convicted in federal court on multiple counts:
http://www.gcn.com/vol1_no1/daily-updates/20766-1.html
That was sufficient as far as I was concerned.

 

[armstrong]

I see that jberryhill has been a member since way back in August 2004. I wonder who he works for?

jberryhill has been active in other domain forums for some time, primarily in matters of legal opinion. It just took him quite a while to find Namepros, but now that he's here, it would be wise to consider his comments carefully. Whether you agree or disagree with him, his inputs are consistently well-researched and thought out.

If you find his position opposite to yours, well then at least you'll have a foretaste of what your opponents can throw at you, and prepare accordingly. Think of him as someone working for you as 'devil's advocate', and for free, at that.

If you find him on your side, well ... :tu:

 

[jberryhill]

I wonder who he works for?

http://www.ddhs.com/en_us/JohnBBerryhill.html

But you don't wonder who AdSenseGuy IS?

Who do I work for? Quite a few domain registrants. Have a sampler...

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0189.html

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/114434.htm

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-1167.html

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2003/d2003-0491.html

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/99602.htm

http://www.tobacco.com/attempted-hi...king-NAF97103/berryhill-domain-hijacking.html

http://www.strick.com/kauffman.htm

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0839.html

If you ever had a UDRP case brought forth against you and then decided to file court action. The domain must remain the property of the registrant until said proceedings are finished.

No, that is not what the UDRP says. And yes, when I had filed one of the first suits of this kind, Yun Ye v. Traditions Ltd., 00-CV-1854 (N.D. Cal. July 27, 2001), the registrar had accidentally transferred the name, but took it back as soon as they realized their error.

On the facts here, there was no error.

Anyone with a question on that point should read the actual UDRP, and the relevant part in Section 4(k)

http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm
If an Administrative Panel decides that your domain name registration should be canceled or transferred, we will wait ten (10) business days (as observed in the location of our principal office) after we are informed by the applicable Provider of the Administrative Panel's decision before implementing that decision. 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.)

Do you see where it says the transfer will be stayed if the case is filed "against the complainant in a jurisdiction to which the complainant has submitted. That is the key point here about why Steve is absolutely wrong here.

When the complaint was filed, the whois gave a zip code in California, and the registrar was in Washington. Also when the complaint was filed, the Complainant was required to pick one of those two jurisdictions to submit to any post-UDRP court challenges under Section 4(k), which you can read above with your own two eyes.

Steve here says he filed a suit in Canada.

So, dna, you tell me. How does Section 4(k) of the UDRP prohibit transfer of the domain name if the name is registered in Washington to a California address, and some guy files a suit in Canada?

If a staffer at Enom said he would hold the name, it was probably because he was asleep at the switch, and then later it was pointed out to them that the anti-transfer provision of UDRP 4(k) was not satisfied by a suit filed in an irrelevant jurisdiction.

Also, the registrant details are locked when a complaint is filed, so AdSenseGuy coming in after the fact and saying, "No, I really live in Canada" has absolutely no bearing on which of the two jurisdictions the Complainant picked for legitimate 4(k) challenges at the time the Complaint was filed.

Sorry if that bothers you, but it is what the rule says.

I will make it my mission to now see ENOM is brought into court to answer for their action in this case if they fail to get me my domain back in a timely fashion.

The problem with digging a hole is that you then have to dig another hole to store the dirt from the first hole...

Didn't you say that the court ordered Google to transfer the name to you? If so, then why does it matter which registrar Google is using - i.e. why is Enom relevant?

Wasn't your suit, under rule 4(k) of the UDRP, filed against Google? (I know, I know, I guess it's just not fair to ask who were the parties to your magical mystery suit).

Subject: Re: Transcript ( )vs Google inc # 04-011566-00

Ah, finally, a clue about the parties to this "precedent setting" ruling.

I can see already that the case of ( ) vs Google is destined for the case books.

Are we to suppose the court was so impressed with your case, that they didn't manage to get you to state your name?

And just how is that Enom is supposed to "answer for their action in this case" when the case was ( ) vs Google , Mr. ( )?

 

[wlspro]

Originally posted by AdsenseGuy
Subject: Re: Transcript ( )vs Google inc # 04-011566-00

Dude name of parties to court cases are public - why are you keeping up this mystery and simply hurting your credibility? Do you really think you can hide the name of the Plaintiff in a case already decided on?

If you seriously want to publicize this issue and put the court decision out to the public you cannot maintain your anonymity. Just state the name of the Plaintiff and the true address - which are both a matter of public record in a REAL suit - and demand an immediate apology from JB.

 

[jberryhill]

Just state the name of the Plaintiff and the true address

His name is GooGlee Bear, and he lives on the cutting room floor with deleted scenes from Shrek.

 

[wisconsin]

This is an excellent thread!

I really enjoyed following this discussion and believe jberryhill has very legitimate questions and has done a great job presenting his argument. I am impressed!
I think I’ve learned many things from jberryhill analysis to the case and his great knowledge!

I also believe that AdsenseGuy reserves the right not to respond to any of the questions asked of him by members. As you can see, this case may not be over and google may challenge the decision. Having said that, anything that AdsenseGuy says in this forum can be used against him if an appeal is filed. An honest answer to a question can be interpreted many different ways and comes back and hurts his case.

After reading this thread, I think I got the point about both sides and still haven’t formed an opinion till I read the judge’s finding.

Thanks both AdsenseGuy & jberryhill for sharing!

 

[jberryhill]

An honest answer to a question can be interpreted many different ways and comes back and hurts his case.

Identifying himself would hurt his case? He's the one itching to get the story into media outlets.

After all, even Mr. ( ) said:

as a matter of fact the judge in this case has made himself and his office available for media comments.

Sure, why not... judges do that all of the time.

I guess the judge is going to wait a while for the media to come swarming in to hear him comment on a case in which he has ruled, since we still don't even know which Superior Court the case was in.

Oh, yes, I forgot, actually identifying the court would hurt his case.

But that's no reason not to turn this into a money-making opportunity for everyone else.

So, here is everyone's chance to win USD $100.

According to AdSenseGuy...

the name was a derivative from a character in the movie "SHREK" GooGleeBear

This should be the easiest $100 you will ever make, if you think that this guy has a shred of credibility. Because I will pay $100 to the first person to establish the existence of a character in Shrek named "GoogleeBear".

The rules are very simple:

If you:

1. Identify any scene in SHREK in which this bear appears, and what the bear is doing in that scene. You may describe the scene - e.g. "when they are torturing the gingerbread man", "during the wrestling match with the knights", etc. If you have the DVD of Shrek (US NTSC encoding) - as I do - you may identify the appearance of this bear by time code, chapter number, or other appropriate designation.

2. Identify any character which states the name of this bear, or whether the bear states its own name. You see, except for the main characters in the film, all of the characters are based on fairy tales. You can't just say "They have the baby bear from Goldilocks, and my uncle says that baby bear is named Googlee."

3. An acceptable bear is anyone that is at least an approximate phonetic match to "Googlee". If there is a Googly bear, then he is a perfectly fine bear.

4. Post your data items from 1 and 2 to this thread.

5. First person to post items 1 and 2 identifying the bear wins. Priority is to be determined by the forum time stamp on an unedited posting.

6. Payment will be made by money order or paypal.

7. Any dispute over priority or accuracy of the identification of the bear is to be determined by Armstrong. If he does not own a copy of SHREK, I will provide him with one or reimburse his cost in obtaining one.

8. This offer is open when posted, and will close at 11:59 PM Eastern US time on Wednesday, August 11, 2004.

So, think of the possibility here. If you harbor any doubt that AdSenseGuy is not lying, you have a golden opportunity to get a 1000% return on the investment of a single DVD, based on your faith in his character. When was the last time you made out that well on a domain deal?

What could be easier? If this guy is telling the truth, then you can put $100 in your own pocket.

Ready, set, go....

(Be vewwy vewwy quiet... I'm hunting Googlee Bears...)

 

[wlspro]

Originally posted by wisconsin

I also believe that AdsenseGuy reserves the right not to respond to any of the questions asked of him by members. As you can see, this case may not be over and google may challenge the decision. Having said that, anything that AdsenseGuy says in this forum can be used against him if an appeal is filed. An honest answer to a question can be interpreted many different ways and comes back and hurts his case.

You are absolutely right.

By exposing his name as it appears in the Complaint AdsenseGuy's position will really be compromised in case Google decides to challenge the decision. This private information "can be used against him if an appeal is filed". Lets keep it a secret here and hope the real parties of interest, including Google & eNom will be unable to know who actually won a law suit against them, what name and address the registration ordered by the court is supposed to be under, and most importantly which court actually gave the order.

This is why no one should reveal his real identity and legal address (even if it is required under the terms of a domain name registration agreement and all applicable policies and rules). After all this information "can be used against him if an appeal is filed" in an anonymous law suit he may happen to win in an anonymous court.

"An honest answer to a question can be interpreted many different ways and comes back and hurts his case." That is why he should keep facts which are a matter of public record, such has the name of a plaintiff in a law suit or the court in which the suit was filed, secret. After all who knows how giving away this information "can be interpreted" and may "come back and hurt his case." Knowing who has filed a suit against you can really be interpreted wrongly and come back and hurt your case.

 

[Anthony]

Is it time to move this thread into the non-Google indexed Legal Matters section yet?

 

[aww]

It's definitely ready for the legal section IMHO.

And I think personal attacks need to be removed (however thinly veiled)

Disagreeing with the decision (or the reasons for disagreeing with the decision) is fine and is not a personal attack but there's alot of other stuff going on here that is starting to look unprofessional.

 

[wlspro]

Originally posted by Anthony
Is it time to move this thread into the non-Google indexed Legal Matters section yet?

I thought we were trying to publicize this matter per AdsenseGuy's wishes.

It all began when AdsenseGuy started the thread titled: "Precedent setting ruling READ THIS"

"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 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"

"there wasnt any restrictions placed on me regarding publishing this ruling as a matter of fact the judge in this case has made himself and his office available for media comments."

"I dont mind this being posted anywhere, It will be much more of a story when i post the judges ruling transcript. Thats when I will want it everywhere"

"I want them to hit the internet like wildfire"

 

[jberryhill]

"Is it time to move this thread into the non-Google indexed Legal Matters section yet?"

No. The thread is already linked-in from elsewhere. And I believe we should respect AdSenseGuy's request in his original post that this situation receive the most publicity that it can get. It is what he requested, and there is no reason to move the thread and deny him the publicity he wants.

 

[aww]

So forgive the question but how does knowing his real name change anything? Such information is easy to figure out (I already have found it). Why does this matter so much to some of you?

I'm not saying I agree with what's been said by any party, but the simple fact is Google is a large COMPANY with annoninimity based on the volume of people in control. AdsenseGuy is a single person and doesn't have that luxury.

We ALL make bad judgement calls sometimes (no pun intended).

 

[armstrong]

Originally posted by aww
It's definitely ready for the legal section IMHO.

I agree. Thread moved from Domain Discussions to Legal Issues & Disputes. A link will remain within Domain Discussions for everyone to see, and link-ins can still follow the original URL, but will require NP membership to view.

And I think personal attacks need to be removed (however thinly veiled)

Disagreeing with the decision (or the reasons for disagreeing with the decision) is fine and is not a personal attack but there's alot of other stuff going on here that is starting to look unprofessional.

Also, agree. Note to everyone - please stick to the facts of the case, and keep personal attacks out of it.

 

[jberryhill]

What? You expect Wired Magazine and CNet to run with a story like "Anonymous man wins PRECEDENT SETTING legal decision against Google"?

Legal decisions are PUBLIC information. Oddly, in this strange court in Canada, and again quoting AdSenseGuy, a judge can "read" a decision, but for some reason the decision and order are not available in a written form until some time much later on.

This is not Roe v. Wade or Kobe Bryant's victim here. It is a lawsuit claimed to have been brought by this individual who has specifically requested as much publicity as he can get.

Besides, I'd hate to have anyone miss out on their chance to win $100.