snubbr.com

GoDaddy testimonials : Good idea to purchase GoDaddy?? 2 Potentially Laughable UDRPs

Get GoDaddy web hosting for just $1.99. Click here to use coupon...

Special $7.49 .COM sales. Click here for this special deal...
Laugh your asses off on these: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2008-0672.html http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2008-1010.html.

Oh, and hats off to Eric...

Comments (18)

The second one looks some bad words to me, but oh my they do have all the money and time for this..

Comment #1

That is sooooo funny,.

The guy reckons he has BS trademarked.....BS I say, LOL.

Hope Mr printlinks is reading this!..

Comment #2

Wow. The "CONTINENTAL CASUALTY COMPANY" case is funny. They file with a Standard Character claim, then on the TM application they have a disclaimer: And then the TM *applicant* files a UDRP for "CONTINENTAL CASUALTY" against ContinentalCasualty.com for using the phrase for which they have just included a disclaimer!!!.

Somebody needs to get a hold of that PrintLinks guy...

The second one for the common law TM of "BS" is just silly BS...

Comment #3

The CCC one is not even a 1(a) yet! It's an ITU... if you have been using that phrase for 40 years, don't you think you would have a TM in at least less than 39 years of business??.

The BS one is just plain funny... "I used to use BS Com... give me my bs.com back!" ... He doesn't even go by that anymore... if he did still use it that would be one thing, but he would still fail on the legitimate rights issue...

Comment #4

Maybe they are relying on a non-response which has become a serious detriment in judgements...

Comment #5

Actually in the first link (CCC): The panel got this one right, even though the Respondent did not reply. You are right though, non-response is probably not the best "response"...

Comment #6

Not responding may well be the best thing sometimes. it not like you are charged with drink driving and fail to turn up to court, then find "dog" the bounty hunter on your tail! It is up to the complainent to prove "all three points" in order for them to win, 1 and 2 dose not cut it, it's all or nothing.

So why waste time and money turning up if you know you are not breaking the law in all three points? The sooner complainents realise this the better, as many people are frivolously claiming "divine rights" of ownership for other peoples legitimate domains, which is just complete rubbish...

Comment #7

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the value of competent counsel. In the CCC case the domain in question was probably not high value. Even though the "BS" case was frivolous, they did hire counsel since the domain was extremely valuable.

Even for low-value domains, if the person had lost (some panels reach goofy decisions) then that person would have a track record of squatting which could be used against them in future proceedings...

Comment #8

I found only the same information on Google, as in the TM UDRP thread. Problem is it is a legal process for TM infringement, not stolen domains. As I do not know if the domain was actually stolen or not, I cannot comment on that. Im only commenting on the UDRP...

Comment #9

Bs.com is a stolen domain name.

Under some circumstances, the UDRP can be an appropriate tool for recovering a stolen name, but not always, as this case demonstrates...

Comment #10

Sex.com, bs.com, it's upsetting how long these things drag out with stolen domains...

Comment #11

I see. And after searching online and seeing there's a whole lot more to this, I.

Guess JP was right that I'm clueless.

If bs.com was indeed stolen from the Picks while it was paid and maintained by.

Them until that happened, then a thousand pardons to them is in order. Unless.

I'm missing something else?..

Comment #12

Apparently the panel was missing something else too:.

This is definitely a sad case, but the panel had to make a judgment based on the evidence presented: The complainant explicitly stated that the prior legal proceedings had no "relevance to this Complaint", and presented little evidence of using the mark in trade (*trade*mark). This belongs in the regular court system, not UDRP, and yet "That action was struck out for want of prosecution on June 15, 2007".

Overall though, sad situation. I would be interested in knowing more about the "want of prosecution"...

Comment #13

Today I received an email from the owner who is offering the name for sale. Current offer supposedly $175K...

Comment #14

That's a real shame. Thanks for keeping us posted..

Drop them a note perhaps ? .

If they exchanged money with the thief there must be a trail...

Comment #15

Why did Brinks Hofer pick a 3 member panel as complainant? And what were they thinking in not establishing some level of fame or common law rights prior to the registration of the domain?.

Seems like this one was dead in the water before it even started.

Bs.com could have been reverse domain hijacking.......

Comment #16

This is indeed a sad case. Mostly it's a sad case of poor legal advice given to the Pick's in the early days of the hijacking. Mark this down as a case for insisting that any victim you know use a competent DOMAIN attorney, not just your regular attorney, or an attorney who is great in court/litigation/divorce law/chasing ambulances but who doesn't even know the difference between UDRP and TDRP, or thinks that you should just sue all the registrars involved...

Comment #17

From what JP said, they actually tried. It didn't pan out...

Comment #18


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.