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]

Hey Stupid, So now your saying the judge wasnt really a judge. Your just a waste of time, Get a life. Better yet tell me who the hell you are.... Yea right forgot your just a coward. I have friends we'll find out.. Keep on advertising and the more you post the more NP$ I get so keep on babbling your crap I dont care. Cant wait to meet YOU!!!!!8-X

 

[wlspro]

Originally posted by AdsenseGuy
Hey Stupid, So now your saying the judge wasnt really a judge. Your just a waste of time, Get a life. Better yet tell me who the hell you are.... Yea right forgot your just a coward. I have friends we'll find out.. Keep on advertising and the more you post the more NP$ I get so keep on babbling your crap I dont care. Cant wait to meet YOU!!!!!8-X

Do the moderators of this forum condone this type of speech on NamePros?

 

[AdsenseGuy]

Oh what you do is ok, you have the cahones to question my speech... Grow up If you can dish it better learn to take it.

The fact remains your still hiding....To me your a coward that likes to trash talk behind annonimity but your more than willing to expose others.

Have you been told yet today? ..... Consider yourself told !!!!!

 

[armstrong]

[thread moved back into public area]

Moderator note: threats or personal attacks are not appropriate. We're not singling anyone out, and appeal to everyone to stick to the rules.

 

[Anthony]

Dare I ask -- any updates on this, AdsenseGuy?

 

[AdsenseGuy]

Hi Anthony I posted the pdf the other day, I will post again here

 

[dna]

"Nothing in the domain name registration agreement or in
the operation of the new corporation (ICANN) should limit the
rights that can be asserted by a domain name registrant or trademark owner under national laws."

United States Department of Commerce
Docket Number: 980212036-8146-02

Do you know what nothing means Wlspro?

 

[wlspro]

Originally posted by dna
"Nothing in the domain name registration agreement or in
the operation of the new corporation (ICANN) should limit the
rights that can be asserted by a domain name registrant or trademark owner under national laws."

United States Department of Commerce
Docket Number: 980212036-8146-02

As you certainly read this document in its entirety you know it is prefaced with the following statement:

“This general statement of policy …does not contain mandatory provisions and does not itself have the force and effect of law.”

Here is the whole section you partially quoted:

Further, the U.S. Government recommends that the new corporation adopt policies whereby:

1) Domain registrants pay registration fees at the time of registration or renewal and agree to submit infringing domain names to the authority of a court of law in the jurisdiction in which the registry, registry database, registrar, or the "A" root servers are located.
2) Domain name registrants would agree, at the time of registration or renewal, that in cases involving cyberpiracy or cybersquatting (as opposed to conflicts between legitimate competing rights holders), they would submit to and be bound by alternative dispute resolution systems identified by the new corporation for the purpose of resolving those conflicts. Registries and Registrars should be required to abide by decisions of the ADR system.
3) Domain name registrants would agree, at the time of registration or renewal, to abide by processes adopted by the new corporation that exclude, either pro-actively or retroactively, certain famous trademarks from being used as domain names (in one or more TLDs) except by the designated trademark holder.
4) Nothing in the domain name registration agreement or in the operation of the new corporation should limit the rights that can be asserted by a domain name registrant or trademark owner under national laws.

You should note that

a) “the US Government RECOMMENDS … “ it does not require.

b) in paragraph (1) “Domain registrants … agree to submit … to the authority of law in the jurisdiction in which the registry, registry database, registrar, or the A root servers are located” - in this case all these are located in the US and non in Canada. So the applicable jurisdiction based on this same document would be US courts and AG has already agreed to submit to the authority of US laws.

c) in paragraph (2) registrant agrees to be bound by UDRP and “Registries and Registrars should be required to abide by the decisions of the ADR (Alternate Dispute Resolution) system.” Here AG has agreed to be bound by UDRP and eNom HAS abided by the decision of NAF as required.

d) in paragraph (3) addresses registration of “famous trademarks being used as domain names … except by the designated trademark holder” - i.e. Google and not admirers of Googlee bear.

See: http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/6_5_98dns.htm

 

[dna]

You quote so much only to confuse the issue.
Icann and the registrars are still directed to do NOTHING to interfere with the legal rights of the registrant under national laws.

 

[Badger]

This thread gets weirder and weirder.

I read AG's thread concerning his personal problems when it 1st came out and my thoughts then and still do go out to him and his wife.

What I cant get over is firstly 'lotsofissues' post saying that some or part there of, of the thread was the ground work for a scam and then posting the link

http://namepros.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=41773

Which I, for one, cannot open....

Will someone explain to me whats going on?? Admin guys, I think for a balanced view can we see that thread please??

 

[armstrong]

Ian, that link points to this thread, but there were some errors when we moved threads. The errors have now been corrected. Sorry for the confusion.

 

[dna]

My point is that ICANN and these registrars are companies
with no more rights then any other company and thus have no right to specify which court AdsenseGuy uses. As "nothing in the
registration agreement or in the operation of the new corporation
should limit the rights" of AdsenseGuy.

 

[dna]

Wlspro,

I have now seen you in other forums and have noticed that
you always seem to be cheerleading, praising and fawning over
J Berry Hill. You are a lawyer, yet have no identity
of your own that I can find. You write much like J Berry Hill.
You followed him into this thread.
And you seem to be as committed and knowledgeable about
AdsenseGuy as J Berry Hill.
So I got to wondering, are you J Berry Hill?

 

[AdsenseGuy]

Brilliant deduction there DNA, That wouldnt surprise me

 

[wlspro]

Originally posted by dna

Wlspro,

I have now seen you in other forums and have noticed that
you always seem to be cheerleading, praising and fawning over
J Berry Hill. You are a lawyer, yet have no identity
of your own that I can find. You write much like J Berry Hill.
You followed him into this thread.
And you seem to be as committed and knowledgeable about
AdsenseGuy as J Berry Hill.
So I got to wondering, are you J Berry Hill?

No I am not John Berryhill (one word). And I trust you are not AG.

While you were researching the other forums did you also notice what the members had to say about this whole issue?

"What I find amusing is that some "morons" (dictionary word) were cheering this other "moron" and even congratulating him for his victory ...
People like that give this noble profession/hobby a bad reputation!"
- another member's opinion, not mine

I did not post a link to the other thread as it contains whois information which Armstrong here seems to find private information and objectionable. Use of insults have already been established as acceptable by the moderators.

Originally posted by AdsenseGuy

Hey Stupid, ... I have friends we'll find out.. keep on babbling your crap ... Cant wait to meet YOU!!!!!8-X

 

[Badger]

heres the thread, case anyones interested

http://www.domainstate.com/showthread.php3?s=&threadid=31084

:lol:

 

[armstrong]

Above posted thread contains the false whois info (666 Screw You Lane ...), not the real whois info that AG says resulted in threatening phone calls made to his home, and which he has reported to the police. The real whois info was what I edited out, in accordance with previously established namepros policy.

 

[wlspro]

Thanks for the clarification Armstrong,

So in order to be “in accordance with previously established namepros policy” one can

- post links to “false” information and not to true publicly available information,
- only AG can link to pages with personal info and defamatory remarks but other such links will be edited by you (08-06-2004 AG posted a link http://www.attrition.org/mirror/attrition/2000/01/21/www.mms.gov/)
- AG can freely make insults on this very same thread “A$$hole”, “$hit”, “Hey Stupid”, “keep up babbling your crap” which are clear violation of your rules. I don‘t know what type of standard you are applying which does not find these “rude, insulting and profane.”

FYI
- AG has already revealed his identity by posting the court decision (you may wish to remove it if it is against your established policies) http://namepros.com/attachment.php?s=&postid=290577
- the previously posted contact info for the domain names was for company address and phone number as indicated on the publicly available whois for relevant domain names and not private home information,
- one can easily find an individual’s phone number in Canada by visiting http://www.canada411.ca/ - the indicated phone number is not listed for AG

 

[dna]

This is the most interesting part of the thread:

Wlspro accuses davezan of being “affiliated with or
related to this AdsenseGuy trying to promote his scam.”

Davezan is intimidated and apologizes.

Wlspro graciously replies “No apology needed.”

Oh wait a minute, its Berryhill who says “No apology needed.”

Did you forget what part you were playing?

 

[wlspro]

Originally posted by dna
This is the most interesting part of the thread:

Wlspro accuses davezan of being “affiliated with or
related to this AdsenseGuy trying to promote his scam.”

Davezan is intimidated and apologizes.

Wlspro graciously replies “No apology needed.”

Oh wait a minute, its Berryhill who says “No apology needed.”

Did you forget what part you were playing?

Originally posted by AdsenseGuy
Brilliant deduction there DNA, That wouldnt surprise me

... and the dance goes on