snubbr.com

GoDaddy customer reviews : Advise I pay for GoDaddy?? Precedent setting ruling READ THIS

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

Special $7.49 .COM sales. Click here for this special deal...
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 /img/avatar9.jpg 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 /img/avatar9.jpg 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 /img/avatar9.jpgship 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.

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..

Comments (231)

Excellent result!!!!.

Wish I could help you get it out there on the net but don't have those sort of contacts.

Way to go AdsenseGuy..

Comment #1

Great to hear! I know you felt really wronged in that matter, so all the best to you!..

Comment #2

Try and get in touch with msn, that should help out a lot.

Congrats on winning the case..

Comment #3

I cant wairt to show you all the judges comments in the transcript He ruined goole saying " They should know better with regards to trademark infringement" He also granted me proprietary rights to googleemail whatever that means my lawyers still have to explain that one to me...

Comment #4

Awesome job, you probably knew from the start that the domain would be taken away from you. But looks like things changed around for once...

Comment #5

Your having a lot of fun with this, but heck, who owuldn't when you beat google, the newest verb thats not in the dictionary, yet..

Comment #6

Big Congrats, AdsenseGuy!.

I am really happy for you! And I am very sure this kind of news will get published quickly!.

Thanks for sharing!..

Comment #7

Beating google in UDRP is news. Congrats!.

Maybe Dnjournal would be interested to publish your story? Fromt here it should be picked up by other major news outfits...

Comment #8

I always root for the underdog...but what do plan to do with googleemail.com besides exploit googles good name?..

Comment #9

Mediaspree:.

There actually was a site attached to the domain that offered free email service via everyone.net as the third party provider. We have yet to determine what we will do with it in the future as both ENOM , MARKMONITOR and Google must obey the ruling and first get me my domain back in my posetion, Once I have control of the domain again I will make my decision.

Armstrong for the record I lost the UDRP and was victorious in the courts. Obviously we all know that once court action is taken after a UDRP ruling the UDRP ruling is stayed and the courts ruling takes precedence.

In this case it was ruled that I am the rightful owner of the domain and that the courts also decided that there was no trademark infringement. Please wait and read the ruling as the judge read it in open court. The transcript will be available as soon as Friday and 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 cant wait until you are all able to see the little guy can KICK GOOGLES ASS. IMHO this is a victory for all of us in this business. You will be able to use this victory in future UDRPs if they are ever brought forward against you. The judge clearly outined every detail as to not leave anything open for appeal.

I am looking for representation in Washington state to sue ENOM over their neglegence, anyone know of a really good law firm there in that state? I want to initiate proceedings immediately...

Comment #10

It seems that googleemail.com should belong to them people will get mixed up like you belong to google, seems like your riding on their ideas and dreams make your own name popular and see how it feels to have someone put a email after it..

Comment #11

Firstly, I think it's a good thing to remind reverse cyberjackers that there is such a thing as retribution.

But honestly, I don't think you will get much sympathy from the general public on this. In fact, this may do much more harm to the domain industry than good, if it results in the general public/businesses thinking that all domainers are cybersquatters up to no good, who reads the implicit details as to why this is not the case?..

Comment #12

Congratulations, AdsenseGuy! Right on!.

Wasn't there another guy who won a case of this.

Sort and posted his story, including some of the.

Court transcriptions?.

I recall it had something to do with Taubmann or.

Something like that. Why not post it yourself on.

Your own website?.

Also, you can report about it here: http://www.circleid.com/internal/contact.php.

BTW, I hope you don't mind my posting this in.

Other forums for others to learn from your.

Example...

Comment #13

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..

Comment #14

I don't see this as good at all...maybe I'm the only one.

I agree with mole that this decision, and your celebration of it, gives the domain industry a bad name.

There was really no good, ethical reason for you to have the name in the first place.

Everyone knows who google is, why would you use this large corporation's name as an email domain?.

I have a feeling that Google will appeal this decision, and in my opinion, they should win.

In my, non-legal, obviously minority opinion, you have no rights to that name and it seems to have been registered in bad faith...

Comment #15

RB:.

The domain was originally thot up as an email service that could be provided to kids for free the name was a derivative from a character in the movie "SHREK" GooGleeBear we came up with GooGleeMail there were thousands of kids that subscribed to this free email service before it was yanked unfairly, And IMHO it would never have been an issue had Google not come out with an email service to compete with hotmail, As you can see Hotmail isnt spelled HOTEMAIL, nor is Yahooemail ours was and is GooGleeMail, Everyone is entitled to their opinion including the presiding judge on the case, His is the only opinion that matters to me at this time. As you state your non-legal minority opinion, The judge carefully rendered his decision after considering all the facts presented. Now it's up to ENOM to get me my domain back..

Comment #16

Which character in the movie shrek was called GooGlee bear? Are you sure you are thinking of the right movie?.

I have feeling this was thought up after the fact. You had 1000's of subscribers to GooGleeMail.com?.

I sort of doubt that since there are no records in archive.org for that except for placeholder pages for register.com and enom.com. In what months was the website live and performing as an email service with 1000's of users?.

How did those users find the site? There are no links to GooGleeMail.com anywhere online.

You had to know when the domain was registered (or snapped since it was originally registered with register.com) that it had a Google significance.

As I said, these are just my opinions though. It seems you have support from quite a few domainers here.

It should be interesting to see what the court of public opinion thinks about the issue once/if you get your wish for media attention...

Comment #17

The site was live from the day we regged it until march 30 2004 http://googleemail.mail.everyone.net...s/loginuser.pl.

I can also paste all the user info as well which was also brought into evidence in court. The above URL was where googleemail.com went too before ENOM carelessly gave it away while it was under court order to stay in my possession...

Comment #18

It would be interesting to see what everyone.net's actual records were (server records).

I have an everyone.net free email service account with 1000's of users, and I can say that it takes longer than a few months to build that many.

You can also add users manually (not saying that you did), but it does seem weird that no record of the site exists for such a site with a large base of users.

Even on that page you linked to you have it spelled as Googleemail instead of GooGleeMail.

Which character on Shrek was that again?..

Comment #19

GoogLeeBear!.

Lol, it's the same spelling, just your saying it one way and hes saying it another..

Comment #20

RB: forgive me for sounding blunt but I have already had the case heard by the courts and they have ruled on it. I will be posting the transcript as soon as I have a copy of it, You and everyone else are free to read the ruling and come up with your own conclusions.

I spent 5 hours on the witness stand yesterday answering questions and giving evidence. I do not feel obliged to do so all over again here. Sure I agree with you that the public may have one perception of the verdict but it's what the courts say that matters. Dont berate me for taking the initiative and $$$$ to take on this fight, IMHO it was worth the battle either way fortunately the courts decided in my favor.

All I can say to you is that the site existed, there was 4261 members, and it was one of the bears in the movie his name was GooGlee.

As for the time frame it took you to get XXXX of members I cannot comment on, but my domain had no problems..

Comment #21

One atta boy here, AdsenseGuy. I'm sure one of the first things the Judge took into account was your good faith...

Comment #22

Hmmm....me thinks the issue here is....bad faith?.

Isn't bad faith supposed to refer to registering the.

Domain name, with the intention of making money.

Out of it, by exploiting the name & goodwill of an.

Existing and well known entity?.

Is that why some people disagree here? If so,.

That depends on the intentions of the person who.

First got the domain name.

We can question it all we want. But as long as.

Adsenseguy knows what he intended to from.

Start to finish, that's his choice.

But on the whole, I hate to see big companies.

Use the UDRP to force people or small organizations.

To fork over their domain names that may or.

May not necessarily sound similar to theirs, just.

Because they have the big bucks and are selfish.

Enough to get them regardless of their intentions.

On how to use them.

True those companies have the right to protect.

Themselves. But what about those who NEVER.

Intended to profit from a well-known brand's.

Name commercially?.

Like fan sites? Hobby sites?.

The list goes on and on.

Also, I'd like to see some changes to the current.

UDRP for reverse hijackings. They oughta make.

Them pay those who really can't afford it.

Just my thoughts on the matter...

Comment #23

If you post in a public forum, you are bound to get varied opinions posted.

Most of the opinions have been favorable (those comments you don't seem to mind), mine opinion happens to be that your intent seems shady. I feel I have the right to post that just as the others have posted their opinions.

Moderators are free to remove my posts if they think my opinion is unwarranted or not welcome here.

You are under no obligation to give any "evidence" to anyone here.

I've seen Shrek way too many times, I don't think there was a GooGlee bear. Maybe in Monster's Inc, but not Shrek. I could be wrong though.

It should be interesting to see the actual transcript of the case.

It sounds like something that Google could win on appeal..

Comment #24

With the money google has, it can very well afford.

To.

But for now, the judge's current decision takes the.

Cake.

We'll see how it goes in the next few months (or.

Years).

Hmmm, not sure but depending on the timing, Enom.

May have done the right thing transferring it to.

Google. But it depends on when that happened,.

Either when the UDRP was concluded, or when.

The court case began...

Comment #25

Enom Mistakenly released the domain while under court order to remain in care and control of the domain until all court action had been completed. Documentation provided into evidence of these facts.

RB: as far as your comments and opinions I am not in any way trying to avoid your comments but I did put up with lawyers that tried to do the exact same thing, They even implied similar comments in open court, Thus was not the case in the judges opinion. I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion but I also believe that one also reserves the right to refuse comment on any questions or remarks made or implied of ones character or intentions. No matter what comments are made at this point is irrelevant, It was ordered that I am the rightful owner of this domain, That ENOM is responsible to get it back in my possession immediately, and what I choose to do with it is completely up to myself.

Transcript to be posted when it is available..

Comment #26

I have to say, reading all the posts, fair play to adsense guy for 1 taking on the nasty big conglomorate and 2 going on to win.

I must also say that googleebear might wanted to have created an email based website in his own name like perhaps googleebearemail rather than googleemail. The bear thing seems to have been convenienty overlooked. And I think we all know where you were coming from adsenseguy when you regged the name.

Still funny though. :-)..

Comment #27

I have a nice server with SM, and can host the papers on the net if you like. Send the scans, I'll PDF them and host them, and provide a URL.

You can also head over to http://www.slashdot.com with your story, they had another recent underdog victory against google, concerning froggle.com. The underdog won.

Post the bugger, lemme know if your interested in a host, since I can definately take the slashdotting..

Comment #28

Hey AdsenseGuy.

I would take it to Ron Jackson. He is a member here by the name of Duke..

He is the owner of Domain Name Journal. http://www.dnjournal.com..

I'm sure you know who he is..

I bet he would be thrilled to help out & he has many industry friends..

I would PM him & let him know.

Nice work AG.

Jim..

Comment #29

Hey thanks Jaydub I didnt know that info.

I am planning on posting the PDF's on all relevant sites that will take it..

Comment #30

AdsenseGuy - I seem to remember that you work for Google - is that right. If so, have they not made you sign an Intellectual Property agreement. If not, fair play then but if they have, how do you get round that. I work for an huge multinational and whilst I am allowed to do what I like, any inventions, creations, processes, in fact anything really that is to do with the company's core business that I am responsible for automatically become the property of the company if they are within the same field. Anything I do outside my company's field belongs to me - this is a pretty standard agreement in large company's and I would have thought that Google would have one - especially as they are about to float on the stockmarket - someone correct me if I'm wrong as I'm not a lawyer, but I think this is required for listed company's.

Anyway - just had that thought as I was reading through but it really rests on the thinking that you do work for google..

Comment #31

I think you deserve credit for having the balls (& the bucks) to take up the fight. However, like most people here, I have my doubts about why you regged the name!.

As for publicity, I would suggest the news agencies. I'm sure the likes of Reuters would welcome a press release on the subject, especially with the IPO making headlines right now. Once the pros get hold of a juicy story you can be sure they will syndicate it further & more quickly than you ever could.

Good luck with the battle against the registrars involved - they should be made to compensate you for taking the easy option & siding with the big boys.

I for one look forward to reading the transcripts...

Comment #32

Wow adsense guy, I am very impressed. This is very good news... I'm sure this domain must already be getting a bunch of traffic..

Comment #33

CSmaster, Thank you and thanks to all that have made comments, I wouldnt be able to guees what kind of traffic the domain is getting as I am now in the process of notifying all involved of the recent judgment. Hopefully there will be no further issues in me getting my domain back into my possession...

Comment #34

For anyone wanting to think a bit deeper on this...

Here is the UDRP decision: http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/232960.htm.

"Respondent contends that it has a legitimate interest in the domain name and has not acted in bad faith since the domain name in question is merely the derivative of a character in the movie Shrek named GooGleeBear.".

Let's start with some facts.

Question 1 - What Bear?.

Here is the script for Shrek: http://shrekscript.onlysomuch.com/.

Show me a bear in there with a name anything like "googly" or "googlee". Or, show me anything establishing the existence of such a bear in Shrek. I'm not saying it's not there, but I'll be darned if I can find it.

Now in the movie Monsters Inc., "Googly Bear" is a nickname used between the monster, Mike Wazowski, and Celia the receptionist: http://www.pathea.com/pixar/2000/mo...sis/index.shtml.

"At the Monsters, Inc. front desk Mike and Celia the receptionist, greet each other with such names as Googly Bear.".

If I recall correctly, even the little girl starts calling the large monster "Googly Bear" - in Monsters Inc. That sure ain't Shrek. I guess Google's team of lawyers didn't bother to check.

Question 2 - Who is this person?.

"Respondent is -googleemail a/k/a googleemail.com, 666 Screw You Lane, Bite Me, CA 90210 (Respondent)".

Indeed, as of January 7, the whois was:.

Name: googleemail .com.

Email: " - a reference to Google's email service, and this otherwise amazingly efficient judge determined that the guy at "Screw You Lane" was really just doing it for the kids.

Riii...iight.

Not only was this a very fast judge, but the existence of this case somehow doesn't manage to show up on the PACER docket of either the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California - the jurisdiction relevant to federal trademark claims where Google is - the USDC for the Western District of Washington - where Enom is - or the USDC for the Central District of California - where the 90210 zip code of the "registrant" is.

Is there something folks are reading in this astounding story that perhaps I am missing?.

John B. Berryhill Ph.D. esq..

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania..

Comment #35

I think the issue was that eNom went overboard to yank the name from the owner and should therefore return it, and not really that the motives for registering the name are questionable - although both points are debatable AND questionable...

Comment #36

I get that part of it. UDRP Section 4(k) requires the registrar to maintain the lock if a suit is filed, absolutely. However, the story told by "AdSenseGuy" makes about zero sense.

Forget all of my other questions, just identify the court and the case number in which these amazing events transpired. That should only take a moment...

Comment #37

Hmmmm.....were we taken for a ride?.

I wonder.....

Comment #38

Jberryhill: You may or may not know your governing laws in the USA But please until you have all the facts your statements may be regarded by some as overbearing.

Case # 04-011566-00.

Superior Court of Canada.

Like I stated earlier when the transcripts are ready they will be posted for all to read. I apparently know what transpired in court, Where you there? I know what the Judge ordered...Obviously you dont until I post it. And as far as your other statement about any other sites I may or may not be involved with I dont remember having any websites for sale as you state. Next time you want to try and flame me make sure you have all your facts. Very quickly I was able to determine what others thought of your views and opinions. But I will refrain from posting any URLs because this is a thread about a court ruling that has an impact on a domain I owned.

As we are all aware you are entitled to your opinion but I would appreciate you keeping your opinions on myself, motives, and character to yourself, as this is not the place for personal views of another member.

I look forward to you reading the transcript of the order and educating yourself further with the facts regarding this decision.

Just one more minor note am I not intitled to choose any nickname I want on a forum or is that considered trademark infringement?.

Further to your comments about gmail here is the trademark info on that word.

Word Mark GMAIL.

Goods and Services IC 016. US 002 005 022 023 029 037 038 050. G & S: Electronic newsletter featuring articles and information of interest to the Christian and Gospel music industry. FIRST USE: 19990000. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19990000.

Standard Characters Claimed.

Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK.

Serial Number 78398525.

Filing Date April 8, 2004.

Current Filing Basis 1A.

Original Filing Basis 1A.

Owner (APPLICANT) Gospel Music Association CORPORATION TENNESSEE 1205 Division Street Nashville TENNESSEE 37203.

Attorney of Record Reber M. Boult.

Type of Mark TRADEMARK.

Register PRINCIPAL.

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE.

Word Mark GMAIL.

Goods and Services IC 038. US 100 101 104. G & S: electronic mail services.

Standard Characters Claimed.

Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK.

Serial Number 78398233.

Filing Date April 7, 2004.

Current Filing Basis 1B.

Original Filing Basis 1B.

Owner (APPLICANT) Google Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE Building 41 1600 Ampitheatre Parkway Mountain View CALIFORNIA 94043.

Type of Mark SERVICE MARK.

Register PRINCIPAL.

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE.

Word Mark GMAIL.

Goods and Services IC 038. US 100 101 104. G & S: Communications services namely, transferring of electronic messages for groups of two or more people by means of a global computer network. FIRST USE: 19980120. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19980120.

Standard Characters Claimed.

Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK.

Serial Number 78395746.

Filing Date April 2, 2004.

Current Filing Basis 1A.

Original Filing Basis 1A.

Owner (APPLICANT) Precision Research, Inc. CORPORATION CALIFORNIA 1211 Bajada Santa Barbara CALIFORNIA 93109.

Attorney of Record Kyle W. Rost.

Type of Mark SERVICE MARK.

Register PRINCIPAL.

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE.

Word Mark GMAIL.

Goods and Services IC 035. US 100 101 102. G & S: Pronet FX, Pronet Premium, Pronet Screen Trader, Pronet Derivatives Trader, and Pronet Matador. FIRST USE: 20020528. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20020528.

Standard Characters Claimed.

Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK.

Serial Number 78395931.

Filing Date April 3, 2004.

Current Filing Basis 1A.

Original Filing Basis 1A.

Owner (APPLICANT) Smith, Shane Karen Griffith, British; Shane Smith, British TRUST London 24 Lock Keepters, 117 Brunswick Quay London SE16 7PW London UNITED KINGDOM.

Type of Mark SERVICE MARK.

Register PRINCIPAL-2(F).

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE.

Word Mark GMAIL.

Goods and Services IC 038. US 100 101 104. G & S: Delivery and storage of messages, data and information by electronic transmission over the global computer networks and mobile phones.

Standard Characters Claimed.

Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK.

Serial Number 78394440.

Filing Date March 31, 2004.

Current Filing Basis 1B.

Original Filing Basis 1B.

Owner (APPLICANT) CENCOURSE, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 4070 Woodridge Rd Miami FLORIDA 33133.

Type of Mark SERVICE MARK.

Register PRINCIPAL.

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE..

Comment #39

Very cute. There are, of course, several Superior Courts in Canada. Would you mind saying WHICH one it was?.

Section 4(k) of the UDRP only requires the registrar to lock the domain name if a suit is filed at the location of the registrar or the registrant.

However, the registrant of googleemail gave it's zip code as 90210, which is in California, and the registrar was in Washington. What did Canada have to do with it? Under the rules of the UDRP, I can see why Enom would have transferred the name, since the rules required a suit to be filed in the US on the facts of the dispute.

I really don't believe that asking "where is a bear named GooGlee in Shrek?" to be an aspersion on anyone's character. And you are free to pick your username as you wish. Kinda funny how you just happen to keep running into Google marks, though.

So tell us about this bear in Shrek.

You don't run gmailtrader.com?.

Do these help jog your memory: http://www.namepros.com/showthread.p...threadid=34499 http://www.namepros.com/showthread.php?postid=271778.

Again, an amazing coincidence. You start off running an email service for kids infatuated with a bear (but confused about movies) which is unfortunately mistaken for having something to do with Google, and then - boom - a couple of months later you are running a site that relates to Google email services.

Do you notice how all of those pending TM registration applications you posted all happened to be filed within a days of each other, with the earliest one being March 31, 2004?.

Do you think that might have something to do with this: http://www.google.com/press/pressrel/gmail.html MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. - April 1, 2004 UTC - Amidst rampant media speculation, Google Inc. today announced it is testing a preview release of Gmail.

So, just what do you think those TM applications prove? Do you see that I posted several numbered questions. Since you seem to have a monopoly on the facts here, perhaps you might answer them, since you are the only person who knows anything about either the bear or who you are.

If this was a provincial court in Canada, then the part about Google not showing up, and you being the only one there, does indeed make a bit more sense. What is there in Canada to enforce anything against? Google, Enom, and the domain name, are all in the US...

Comment #40

Jog my memory sure I am promoting a website..... NOT as you insinuate in your earlier thread " SELLING IT".

Am I ever glad I never had you and your firm represent me in this matter.

State the facts, not misrepresented statements.

I know this is alot to comprehend but the below referenced company submitted MAR 31 2004.

Guess they must have placed a call to Ms.Cleo or maybe google told them what they were about to announce. In any regard CENCOURSE, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE has not to my knowledge initiated any complaints against any owners of gmail related domains, like gmailswap.com, gmailinvitation.com, gmailforum.com or any of the thousands of others.

Word Mark GMAIL.

Goods and Services IC 038. US 100 101 104. G & S: Delivery and storage of messages, data and information by electronic transmission over the global computer networks and mobile phones.

Standard Characters Claimed.

Mark Drawing Code (4) STANDARD CHARACTER MARK.

Serial Number 78394440.

Filing Date March 31, 2004.

Current Filing Basis 1B.

Original Filing Basis 1B.

Owner (APPLICANT) CENCOURSE, Inc. CORPORATION DELAWARE 4070 Woodridge Rd Miami FLORIDA 33133.

Type of Mark SERVICE MARK.

Register PRINCIPAL.

Live/Dead Indicator LIVE..

Comment #41

There is no time stamp on the Gmail press release.

Do you see where the Cencourse application says that the filing basis is "1B"?.

That is an intent-to-use trademark application. Of course Cencourse has not initiated any proceeding, because what you have posted here is evidence that they are not using the mark.

Now, look at this Reuters story posted to Usenet on March 31, 2004: http://www.google.com/groups?q=gmail...nk.net&rnum=97 Google to Test E-Mail in Challenge to Rivals.

Wed Mar 31, 2004 09:17 PM ET.

By Lisa Baertlein.

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (Reuters) - Google Inc., the world's No. 1 Internet.

Search provider, said on Wednesday it will begin testing a free search-based.

E-mail product called Gmail, as it continues striking back at rivals Yahoo.

Inc. and Microsoft Corp.'s MSN.

The new service, which goes live Thursday at www.gmail.com,.

The Google press release, on Thursday April 1, announced that it was live. The first notice of the service, via Reuters, was on Wednesday, March 31, in the evening. If the press release wasn't ready until late in the day, then they would have dated it for the next day. However, between 9:17 PM and midnight, one can certainly electronically file a TM application on an intent-to-use basis.

When they reach allowance and establish use rights in order to obtain registration, do wake me up over that news.

Or do you really believe it was some kind of psychic coincidence that all of these pikers rushed to get these applications to the USPTO within a few days?.

And you have nothing to do with gmailtrader.com other than advertising it. Is that it?.

But, please, do tell us about the GooGlee Bear character in Shrek...

Comment #42

Hey berry, what's a bear like you doing in a place like this?..

Comment #43

Is there any time frame for when Enom must get you back the domain name?..

Comment #44

Yes immediately after I get them the transcript on the ruling.

I already have the judgment, I am the one holding back until I have it in writing before publicizing it. Once I have the documents I will make them public in as many different methods possible.

Mole: Ambulance chasers must go where the action is...

Comment #45

Ouch. IANAL, but this certainly explains enom's actions. Even with a Canadian court order, enom can probably get away with ignoring the order, since it appears to lack jurisdiction. At the very least, they can get a restraining order, and fight the Canadian ruling within US courts.

Welcome to namepros, jberryhill!..

Comment #46

Armstrong I beg to differ with you on that point I have a copy of an email from Brad Bailey Enom Compliance manager, That states they are in reciept of the court documents and they will obey by whatever ruling is issued. Furthermore, they went on to say in this email that was entered into evidence that They would remain in care of this until notified by the courts.

How can you say that a registrar can pick and choose what courts they will honor read UDRP Governing rules.... Thats the mentality I have been dealing with from the beining on this venture. At least one thing is for sure I keep documented proof of every bit of corespondence. That dosnt lie, ENOM will have to honor the courts decision, Or ICANN will have a fielday with them. Listen I have no problems spending as much money as it takes to .................

For The Record.

Enom, & Michelle Scraber @ NAF were all made aware of the correct whois info...

Comment #47

"Which was?".

Which was certainly not in the whois data for the domain name when the Complaint was filed. Michelle Schaber is simply a case manager at the NAF, and what she was "made aware of" is totally irrelevant. Registration data is locked when a UDRP is filed precisely to prevent the sort of game you apparently wanted to play during the proceeding. One thing that Ms. Schaber is very good at, however, is reminding the parties of the UDRP "mutual jurisdiction" when she sends the email with the Panel's decision to the parties. Given that I've only asked three numbered questions, and you've only partially answered one (still not identifying which superior court), would it do any good to inquire what it was?.

The weird thing is that Steve here is posting for ways to obtain publicity, and he apparently doesn't want anyone to know who he is.

The agreed mutual jurisdiction is established when the Complaint is files as either the location of the registrant or the registrar. Running in at some later time to try to fix your bogus whois data doesn't change what was fixed at that time. What location did they pick in the Complaint? CA or WA?.

"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.".

Yes, you've said you worked at Google which, if true, may have provided you with advance notice of proprietary business plans to launch an email service. You have said elsewhere that you believe registering Google-related domains in your wife's name somehow gets you out of your obligations under your employment contract.

You are further unwilling to substantiate the existence of this bear in Shrek, which inspired you so deeply that you named the wrong movie. Thousands of children flocked to your website, no doubt housed at "666 Screw You Lane", despite the utter absence of a single link-in from anywhere.

Despite your original fascination with a non-existent cartoon bear, you have since begun running a website which derives revenue from trading in Google email accounts.

It appears nobody showed up at your proceeding, if any, in Canada, since you have to send a transcript to the only other parties who appear to be involved. Since you claim to have sent documents to Brad Bailey at a prior point in time, there is certainly nothing preventing you from posting those now, to have a look at whatever it is you filed.

Concerning the GMAIL ITU application by Cencourse, if anyone needs an amusing diversion from this thread, I challenge you to visit Cencourse.com, then search the internet for information about their products and services, and then provide a rational account of what those products and services are...

Comment #48

Cencourse.com.

#78452433 GMOBILE - filed 7/18/2004.

#78452432 COMOBILE - filed 7/18/2004.

#78394440 GMAIL - ITU filed 3/31/2004.

#78084919 2774115 C CENCOURSE - 1/23/2003.

(REGISTRANT- Sikes, Steven, B. INDIVIDUAL UNITED STATES PO BOX 348344 Coral Gables FLORIDA 332348344).

Spherequest.com.

78230134 MQUEST - ITI - filed 7/27/2004.

78249031 SPHEREQUEST - ITU - filed 1/6/2004.

(APPLICANT - SPHEREQUEST CORPORATION DELAWARE 4070 Woodridge Rd. Miami FLORIDA 33133).

78135513 2787633 SPHEREQUEST - 6/13/2002(REGISTRANT - SPHEREQUEST CORPORATION DELAWARE PO BOX 348344 Coral Gables FLORIDA 332348344).

Other related TM registrations/applications.

78202148 GENCOURSE.

78084919 2774115 C CENCOURSE.

78122006 2740817 IMAGINE YOUR WORLD.

78027621 2599525 COMAGINE..

Comment #49

Absolutely brilliant. Dunno about anyone else here but what a great thread......... I vote thread of the year...

Tell me again which one of them is Holmes and who is Moriarty....

"elementary my dear watson"..

Comment #50

Far from elementary but what an absolutely fabulous read. AdsenseGuy - I am still interested to hear your thoughts on the Intellectual Property Agreement. I know that you have said previously about registering in your wives name but even so I would have thought this was a clear breach of the faith of such an agreement. Can any of the lawyers help me out on this just in case I am speaking rubbish and if I am I apologise!.

JBerryhill - welcome to namepros...

Comment #51

Boy, how you guys turn on Google! Google is like a parent to you. Their PPC program is most every webmasters best friend. Now you sound like you want to lynch them!.

Then again, it is nice to see AdsenseGuy get to keep his domain. I wouldn't suggest making an email service with the domain, which could confuse googleemail.com with gmail.com. However, it could be used for an informational site about gmail.com. GoogleMail.com would be better, but GoogleEmail is still nice...

Comment #52

Now, wlspro, have you looked at the Cencourse site to figure out what, exactly, they are selling, what it does, and how much does it cost? Or who is on their "highly talented management team".

I get the feeling their slogan "Imagine Your World" is more than just a slogan there.....

Comment #53

I guess you join Froogles, Googles and Booble..

Can I add the story of GoogleeMail to this article at Domain Food ?

By the way, it was in GigaBlast: http://gigablast.com/search?q=googleemail..

Comment #54

Check the "indexed" date of the Gigablast results.

Also, the UDRP decision notes the domain name was pointed at booble.com while the proceeding was going on.

Interestingly, AdSenseGuy had this well reasoned comment to make on the booble.com situation, prior to the googleemail.com UDRP proceeding: http://www.geek.com/news/geeknews/20...0130023668.htm Google is just a bully (4:38pm EST Fri Jan 30 2004).

Google is a bully and hurray for booble, They tried the same chit with us googleemail.com hmm maybe we should redirect that to booble.com, We used googles letter as toilet paper and returned to sender, if google wants to own all the domain names WRITE SOME checks or shut the hell up. YOU bought and paid for google.com nothing else, if they keep this crap up they might as well sue anyone that has a G in their domain or maybe even any domain with 2 OO 's inAll I can say to google is BITE ME. - by BiteMeGoogle.

These are the words of someone motivated to provide email services to thousands of children fascinated by that bear in Shrek, which still nobody has identified. All that needed to be done in response to the Google C&D was simply to tell them that (a) you misunderstand the name - it is really about a cartoon bear, and (b) we are using it to provide email services for children.

Oddly, instead of doing that simple and reasonable thing, we find our hero saying Google should "WRITE SOME CHECKS or shut the hell up", and suggesting he might point the page at porn. Interestingly, that is exactly what the UDRP decision says he did.

What a strange way of preserving one's service to children.....

Comment #55

Don't ask me, JB, it was your friends at the USPTO who granted them the trademark registration for "educational services, namely, providing online interactive classes in the fields of language learning and cross-cultural training; providing interactive online computer games for languages and cross-cultural training; providing a web site on a global computer network featuring language translation services." Somehow they found their first use of the mark "IMAGINE YOUR WORLD" in May 2002 acceptable trademark use in commerce. The statement of use was filed and accepted in 2003.

The Spherequest.com site is almost identical in design to Cencourse.com and just as vague about it's offerings. They were originally designed by a "Steven Mayton" with identical file structures. Hey AdsenseGuy, Friday has come and gone and there is no sign of the judgment transcript.

You sure you gave them the right address this time and they did not send it to:.

Googleemail.

666 Screw You Lane.

Bite Me, CA 90210.

"OH isnt the IPO coming out soon..."..

Comment #56

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/attr...1/www.mms.gov/ http://www.attrition.org/postal/z/legal/john_berryhill/ http://www.attrition.org/postal/z/le...ryhill/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...

Comment #57

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...

Comment #58

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

Comment #59

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...

Comment #60

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...

Comment #61

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. 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? 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 "/vol1_no1/daily-updates/20766-1.html.

That was sufficient as far as I was concerned...

Comment #62

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 .....

Comment #63

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/deci...2002-0189.html http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/114434.htm http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2002-1167.html http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2003-0491.html http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/99602.htm http://www.tobacco.com/attempted-hij...hijacking.html http://www.strick.com/kauffman.htm http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2002-0839.html 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.

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. 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). 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. ( )?..

Comment #64

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...

Comment #65

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

Comment #66

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 Ive 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 havent formed an opinion till I read the judges finding.

Thanks both AdsenseGuy & jberryhill for sharing!..

Comment #67

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

After all, even Mr. ( ) said: 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... 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 it's 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...) http://www.qsl.net/fudd/fudd.gif..

Comment #68

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...

Comment #69

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

Comment #70

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...

Comment #71

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"..

Comment #72

"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...

Comment #73

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)...

Comment #74

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

Comment #75

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...

Comment #76

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?..

Comment #77

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 Falwells name in it's address and parodies the reverends 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...

Comment #78

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?..

Comment #79

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

Comment #80

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..

Comment #81

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

Comment #82

"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? 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?..

Comment #83

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.

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

Comment #84

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..

Comment #85

After 30 sec of searching, this was the best I found.. http://www.pathea.com/pixar/2000/mon...is/index.shtml.

6th and 7th paragraph...

Edit: googly bear googlee bear Googlybear Googleebear..

Comment #86

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..

Comment #87

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...

Comment #88

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..

Comment #89

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?..

Comment #90

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...

Comment #91

Hey dude, whats 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/ne...049308074.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 it's 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 it's family of web sites..

See http://www.findarticles.com/p/articl...0/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 eNoms 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...

Comment #92

"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...

Comment #93

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 you via pm?.

Rgds.

Matt..

Comment #94

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

Comment #95

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

Comment #96

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

Comment #97

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...

Comment #98

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

Comment #99

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 it's 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..

Comment #100

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...

Comment #101

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 it's 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!..

Comment #102

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...

Comment #103

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...

Comment #104

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?..

Comment #105

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

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..

Comment #106

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 dont 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...

Comment #107

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?..

Comment #108

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......

Comment #109

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...

Comment #110

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. 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.

What sort of satire is using "googleemail" to provide an email service? 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 it's Constitution. 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.

A good summary is here: http://www.ca7.uscourts.gov/op3.fwx?...equest+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 it's 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. 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...

Comment #111

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?..

Comment #112

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/groups?selm...&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?..

Comment #113

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 dont 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 wouldnt 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 Googles trademark that are not owned by Google..

I guess Google doesnt 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...

Comment #114

Because Adsenseguy says that his lawsuit was in Canada, where nothing is protected by anything in the U.S. Constitution. If you think any legal precedent in Canada is going to be based on the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, then one of us is tremendously misinformed on the subject of Canada not being part of the United States.

Even in the US, "-sucks" names are generally okay, if actually used in connection with legitimate criticism instead of as a cheap form of extortion. Not even Adsenseguy has claimed that "googleemail.com" was registered for non-commercial commentary and criticism of Google. So what does your point about coca-cola-sucks.com have to do with anything?.

Yes, there are lots of people who have domain names with "Google" in them. I don't know what that proves either. No. Settling is not "prevailing". It was a decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board here: http://tools.schwimmerlegal.com/realtor.pdf.

That's not settling, that's winning.

"This is what Apple Computer did.".

No. Apple Computer may have reached a settlement with Apple Records over Apple Computer's sale of musical recordings, but that has nothing to do with whether "Apple" was ever in jeopardy of becoming a generic term for computers. Please provide a link to any challenge they faced on whether their mark had become generic. I don't deny that at all. It happened to cellophane, escalator, aspirin, nylon.... lots of things.

I sincerely doubt that has happened to Google. Most obviously because people who use "google" as a verb are referring to using Google - the trademarked product itself. But, to make sure whether I understand you here, you seriously believe that if you go off to some country-code TLD, say ".xyz", and you register Google.xyz and run a search engine, then you would not be infringing a trademark.

Federal Rule 11 is not "keeping [me] honest". Since you seem to believe I would take money to argue that the earth is flat, I thought I might mention that, no, there are some things lawyers can't even take money to do.

I'm puzzled by your last two sentences. AdSenseGuy started the thread to solicit media attention for a great legal precedent which he is going to publish, oh, any day now one supposes. For some reason, there seems to be a whole lot of curiousity as to why I joined the discussion...

Comment #115

I dont think curious as to why you joined the thread JB, more that what you say is so succinct and above what, I am sure what most of us here would say is, so much "above our station", we are just fascinated by what you are about to say next.

Education is a drug and you are the teacher.

In my country listening to your views tis like watching David Gower hit a perfect square cut. (cricket).

Now can I have ny tongue back please. :-)..

Comment #116

Where does the "First Amendment" give the "right to go out and register [a domain name]?" Do you know what the First Amendment is about and have you even read it? Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/c...n/amendment01/.

Registering a domain name (acquisition of property and the right to use it under the provisions of an agreement governed by rules and policies set by governing bodies) is not a "right" protected by this or any other provision of the US Constitution.

Even if US laws did apply, ie if AdsenseGuy was a US person, which he has presumably denied when filing a complaint in Canada and availing himself to the jurisdiction of the Canadian laws, the First Amendment would not in any way give him the "right to go out and register [a domain name]?".

Simply put the First Amendment does not provide any foreign nationals any rights in their countries of domicile, and it does not provide any US persons with any rights to register any domain names in the US whatsoever...

Comment #117

Sheesh, here we are discussing about the thread.

AdsenseGuy started, and now we're talking about.

Federal Rule 11 and the First Amendment!.

So should there be a law as to who can register.

What?.

Anytime you're ready with those transcripts,.

AdsenseGuy!..

Comment #118

Jberryhill,.

It is obvious that you are an advocate for Google..

Otherwise you would have admitted from the beginning.

That once a word enters the language as the generic term.

It loses it's trademark. Instead, you only mentioned.

That Kleenex and Xerox were generic terms that.

Never lost their trademarks. When in truth, they.

Are well known examples of trademarks that.

Never quite became dictionary words for.

Tissue and copy. Pulling the truth out of you.

Is like pulling teeth out of an alligator.

Google and googling have come to mean searching the.

Web using any search engine. People who never.

Use google.com use the term for searching with.

Their favorite engines. And unlike Kleenix and Xerox,.

There is no current dictionary word that.

Can really substitute for google or googling..

If I was Adsenseguy, I would insist that google, was.

In the public domain and there are no.

Trademark rights to violate.

Obviously, the internet didnt exist when the first.

Amendment was written. But, it has always been.

Interpeated to protect free speech rights in new.

Medias, which no doubt includes the right to register.

A domain name, as this is a method of communication...

Comment #119

Hey man,.

If someone makes you look small no need to revert to cheap insults.

And you say insults are "sleazy and irrelevant".

Make your mind up!..

Comment #120

Lets take a survey. Who agrees with DNA? Raise your hand if you think the instruction "Go google it" could reasonably mean visit lycos.com..

Comment #121

Has anyone tried to yahoo the googlee bear?.

I think one reason google will never become public domain is because of the existence of other strong brands in the same industry (like yahoo). This was not the case with xerox the first few years after the photocopying technology first came out...

Comment #122

Guys stop trying to insult JB it is futile. JB is providing helpful legal advice that would often times cost you a pretty penny, for free.

Obviously the members insulting him are most likely not members of other large domain forums, and do not realize that JB has quite a solid reputation on many other forums and his advice is often times like gold.

I would really like to see Adsense's reactions to the questions posed in this thread, so that we can all see what the whole deal is...

Comment #123

Couldn't agree more Darkfire - JB is extremely well respected on other large forums and I think it is great that he has popped in here to give his take on one of our threads.

JB - Welcome to NPs and we hope to see you around for quite some time. Seconded - also, we are still waiting for the court transcript - it's nearly a week overdue now.

Come on AdsenseGuy - put us all out of our misery and post the transcript for us to read..

Comment #124

Good job AG, I only read the first and last pages of this thread, but all that matters is that you won the domain..

Comment #125

DNA, I am not an "advocate for Google" as much as simply trying to get to the truth of whatever it is that AdSenseGuy claims has happened in a court in Canada. There are aspects of his story which do not seem to make sense. There have also been assertions, such as in connection with Section 4(k) of the UDRP, which are demonstrably not true.

You are entitled to your own opinion about whether "Google" or "Googling" is a generic term. In the real world of trademark litigation, issues such as that are determined by factual inquiries such as consumer surveys, and not whether one person thinks it 'tis or 'taint. There are two kinds of questions in a legal dispute - questions of fact, and questions of law. Factual questions, i.e. is a term "generic", are decided on evidence, and the standard of proof is fairly high since there is a presumption of validity attached to registered trademarks. Legal questions are determined on the basis of precedent.

On the legal question here, you are further entitled to your own opinion about the First Amendment, and why you think it is relevant to a legal dispute in Canada. You are also entitled to your opinion about what the law should be. In the real world, court cases where the First Amendment "parody" defense was raised in connection with domain names have come out like the two cases described below my comments.

However, the parody defense is what is called an "affirmative defense" - i.e. one claiming the defense affirmatively admits having appropriated a trademark, but has done so for the purpose of conveying a satirical message of some kind. It is not "advocating for Google" that makes me ask "What is the satire in Googleemail?" It is a question about why you believe that there is some kind of "satire" involved in using that as a name for a children's email service based on a cartoon bear.

Now I have offered $100 for several days to an unknown number of strangers to find the centerpiece of this Googlee Bear defense. The absence of attempts is not the product of everyone else having also become an "advocate for Google". However, REAL advocates for Google making a major killing in fees and not having anything else to do, would have also expended considerable effort in finding this bear, and would have challenged someone in a real court to produce evidence of this bear's existence.

On the First Amendment and domain names, I also did not make up the outcomes in these real cases:.

Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Richard Bucci, d/b/a Catholic Radio.

97 Civ. 0629 (KNW)(S.D.N.Y. March 26, 1997), aff'd. 152 F. 3d 920 (2d Cir., Feb. 9, 1998), cert.

834 (1998) In this case, the Southern District enjoined defendant from continuing to utilize plaintiff's service mark "Planned Parenthood" in it's domain name, at which was found a web site featuring references to a book espousing anti-abortion positions. Such use was held to violate the Lanham Act and not to be protected by First Amendment. Plaintiff Planned Parenthood Federation of America ("Planned Parenthood") is a not-for-profit organization that, among other things, offers information to the public about contraceptives and abortions. Plaintiff is the owner of the service mark "Planned Parenthood" and operates a web site at www.ppfa.org..

[...].

Defendant's conduct was not protected by the First Amendment because the mark was used to identify defendant's site, and not as part of a communicative message about plaintiff or it's organization. Said the court: " By using the mark as a domain name and home page address and by welcoming users to the home page with the message "welcome to the Planned Parenthood Home Page!" defendant identifies the web site and home page as being the product, or forum, of plaintiff. I therefore determine that, because defendant's use of the term "planned parenthood" is not part of a communicative message, his infringement on plaintiff's mark is not protected by the First Amendment.".

See also.... http://www.haledorr.com/publications...1629&Type=5543.

The US Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals recently surprised some trademark law experts in People For The Ethical Treatment of Animals ("PETA") v. Doughney by dismissing the defendants parody defense and deciding in favor of the plaintiff, the animal advocacy group, People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals ("PETA"). The court found that the registration of the domain name www.peta.org, used by the defendant to direct Internet users to a "parody" web site called "People Eating Tasty Animals," was not a legally valid parody and, therefore, constituted cybersquatting (see our December 7, 1999 Internet Alert) and trademark infringement..

[...].

Thus, although the court recognized and stressed the validity and importance of a partys First Amendment right to parody a trademark or service mark, the practical ramifications of the PETA decision may result in a narrowing of this right, even beyond parody uses. No, I mentioned a list of several former trademarks that HAVE become generic - cellophane, escalator, nylon, zipper, aspirin. It certainly does happen.

Your assertion is that it has happened to "Google". The only evidence we have on that point is an online dictionary entry which defines the term by reference to the trademark owner. If you have some other dictionary you'd like to introduce into the record, you may certainly point us to it.

It is extremely common for people in the southern United States to call every carbonated soft drink a "coke", too.

I do hope you see the logical disconnect between simultaneously calling it a "satire" of Google, and a generic term. If it is a generic term, and thus not distinctively associated with one particular entity, then how can it be a satire of that particular entity. A satire, to be effective, must make a reference to it's subject...

Comment #126

Time's up! No bear. I am taking my $100 to Las Vegas in the morning...

Comment #127

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!.

Have fun w/ the slot machine, JB!.

What's the deal w/ JB posting here? Every.

Registered member has the right to post.

To anything he/she/it sees fit.

At least JB's posts are more relevant than.

Ours can ever hope to be...

Comment #128

Wow, this is the most interesting post in the forum, so far Well I'm not going to base any opinion, till AG answers some of the most basic questions JB was trying to ask!..

Comment #129

Hey, has Vegas set odds, yet, for the ultimate disposition of this case and this domain name?..

Comment #130

Up until the recent revelations AG visited NP daily and submitted an average of 6 posts each day. He seems to be busy with the reporters who have been hoarding him since his big victory over Google.

The last time he visited NP was 3 days ago and his last post was 6 days ago. Hope he is not spending all his settlement money at once (buying up domain names which include the terms google, yahoo, msn, hilton, & which he believes are names of cartoon characters and which some here find to be common terms not protected under trademark laws).

By the way googleemail.com is still owned by Google with last update on May 4, 2004. And Google's IPO deadline is set for one hour from now at 2PM PDT on Thursday August 12. http://zdnet.com.com/2100-1104_2-5303731.html..

Comment #131

Yeah, I'm wondering if he has any updates for us, we're still waiting..

Comment #132

Could this be it ? -.

Not a bad looking bear to me - lol http://www.cutiekewpie.com/othercuties/googlybear.htm.

... and here's another pr 2 that came up Using term as typo - It mentions Monsters Inc. http://www.geocities.com/sailormoons...mikeindex.html..

Comment #133

That's the second time we've seen that bear (not THE BEAR but that bear).

ST..

Comment #134

Nah - his deal was already called - and this is a typo type thing ......

Just had to look though..

Comment #135

Wasn't the claim (and JB's offer) about a bear from the movie Shrek? Any spelling, just anywhere in the movie as claimed?.

Enjoy the $100, JB, you earned it for the most interesting thread ever here. I am curious if you know, JB, is Google's HR department involved at this point? The whole intellectual property thing and employees...some companies might look unkindly at the situation and have some hard questions of their own. Just seems like this might be a whole can of worms and I wondered what your take on that aspect of it was. Although from reading all the IPO business going on right now with them, this may be small potatoes in comparison...

Comment #136

All these new members supporting berryhill..

This is the only place that wtfever has ever made a post..

Google is really committed to this attack on adsenseguy...

Comment #137

Whether new or existing members, questions have been asked here that have not been answered dna - specifically those questions which would help prove AGs case. I myself have posed questions here which have been ignored such as my question about the intellectual property agreement between AG and google. In addition to that, we were promised a copy of the transcript would be shown a week ago and it has not materialised. When I read this post, I took AG at face value and was the first person to congratulate him - now however, because of his actions, I am questioning that congratulations and wondering what the hell is going on.

Namepros has a lot of guests that are on the boards constantly - just look at the user statistics. They are also Namepros Users who get what they need by browsing the site as opposed to posting in it. If this thread has convinced a few of them to sign up and post their opinions, does that make their opinions any less valid - IMO not.

J Berryhill is a well respected member of the domainers community on the Web - not necessarily Namepros, he posts on other domain forums a lot and I particularly welcome him finding his way to post here.

To all the other new members - Welcome to Namepros..

Comment #138

Welp, thought I would catch up with the latest on this thread, only to find no Adsense Guy for a while. Last posted : 08-07-2004 01:06 AM.

Hope he wasnt abducted by Google Management and hidden in there underground torture suits?..

Comment #139

WRONG Bensontwenty..

You can't even see this thread unless you join..

And all these Google shills have just joined...

Comment #140

You saying these oldtimers are Google fans?.

Bensontwenty - Member Since: Jul 2003.

Sy4.com - Member Since: Jul 2003.

Armstrong - Member Since: Jul 2003.

Coastalguy - Member Since: Aug 2003.

Grrilla - Member Since: Sep 2003.

All4cost - Member Since: Mar 2004.

And these newer members are more honest?.

Dna - Member Since: Apr 2004.

AdsenseGuy - Member Since: May 2004..

Comment #141

Wow...2 very mildly worded posts saying I thought a thread was interesting and asking a question makes me one of the "Google shills?".

I find the entire NP site educational and helpful. I visited it as a non-member several times before finally signing up, and I signed up before this thread ever began. I certainly have not attacked anyone and it seems the mods are doing a good job making sure there are no attacks on either side (with the exception of some of us being called Google shills, I guess). There are some humorous elements to this thread (come on, the $100 for the Shrek bear thing was pretty funny!) and the original court documents were really interesting. Sorry if I offended you by posting, dna. I honestly don't know who's right or wrong here - it's still an interesting thread.

And thank you for the welcome, Bensontwenty...

Comment #142

Conspiracy theory? Another interesting possibility, w/o a factual basis, is added to the mix. This thread becomes more intriguing by the day.

I have had direct dealings w/ Google's TM department this month. Google doesn't impress me, at all, as being the type of company that would enlist shill posters to aid in their cause. Ethically, they came across as being well above that sort of tactic, which is more than I can say for some of the posts I have read here, regarding ethics..

Initially, I came down strongly on the side of the domainers case, but midway through the thread, chose to reserve any judgement until more was revealed, and now am beginning to have my doubts about the legitimacy of AG's claims. (Not that my judgement matters a hoot in regards to the disposition of the case.)..

Comment #143

Lol..calm down lads.

I may just be a very old "shrill".

To be honest, I dont follow alot of this legal thread..I just pop up now and then lol.

Btw, welcome to you both.

Michael...umm, read last post...Told you it was a conspiricy lol.

Rgds.

Matt..

Comment #144

Welcome to namepros, wtf?.

Indeed, this is one of the most interesting threads in NP that I can recall. Thanks to AG for starting the thread, and to JB for his thorough research. Now if only we can get the rest of the story.....

Comment #145

Wlspro,.

You joined this forum in August 2004..

You have 10 posts on this thread and none anywhere else..

You are definitely here with a purpose..

Obviously, the same purpose as Berry Hill..

There are definitely people that joined this.

Forum for no other purpose than to.

Discredit and ridicule Adsenseguy.

And you posted his identity so that any forum.

Member could see it after he had clearly.

Indicated that he wanted his privacy respected..

You should have been banned.

From the forum for that..

Why dont you identify yourself?..

Comment #146

Congratulations - you have discovered how to use the profile link on the page. We both share in the desire to enlighten the simple minded members here who believed the obvious false story reported on this tread. No ulterior motives. It is very difficult for some of us to simply walk away when confronted with a group of spectators praising and congratulating the snake oil salesman for the wonders he has achieved with his magical potion.

The sole motive has been to educate our fellow domainers so they can decipher fact from fiction based on common sense and nothing more. The credit or discredit derives from AdsenseGuys responses, or lack thereof, and not by those posing simple, polite, and common sense questions. His intent as repeatedly indicated on this same thread has been publicizing this court case. Court cases and parties to those cases are a matter of public information. It is simply impossible to publicize a case without divulging the identity of the parties. We have only abided by his wishes.

Furthermore you should remember that he improperly posted links to JBs personal information, along with unquestionably defamatory and impolite remarks with the excuse that this information is a matter of public record. We only followed the standard set by him. Banning is at the discretion of the NP moderators. They are free to unilaterally ban me or any other party which they believe violates the terms of use of this forum. We are all guests here. Better not identify oneself than to falsely indicate your name and contact info as:.

AdsenseGuy, Google employee, aka Googleemail, 666 Screw You Lane, Bite Me, CA 90210. If I was publicizing a genuine court case I would most certainly state the names of the parties along with other relevant facts repeatedly asked and to date unanswered.

In the meantime you may think of me as Googlee Bears distant cousin...

Comment #147

Well said WLSPro, althrough not all of us like to be thought of as "Simple Minded".

Perhaps, Too trusting is a better use of words.

Hope WLSPro, and JB continue to be productive members of this community...

Comment #148

Actually you aren't quite correct on that one dna. This thread started out in a public forum before it was moved by the mods to the Legal Issues & Disputes area. This I believe was done to give AG the benefit of the doubt whilst the issue was debated. Once it had been moved quests would have been unable to read it and would have needed to register to continue following it.

Which just goes to show that interesting threads encourage new members to sign up and IMO explains the reason why people have joined this forum to simply view this thread. No ulterior motives, just a desire to continue reading an informative and interesting thread.

The domain community is small - I know a lot of people on this board but also know of other respected members of the community who post at other forums. Just because they are new here, doesn't mean they are new to the industry. It just means that they were concerned enough about this thread to sign up and join in the debate.

So please - no more personal attacks and inferences about Google Shills - thats not why I am here and I am quite sure it is not why most other people are here...

Comment #149

Wlspro,.

If it was allright for you to post Adsenseguys.

Name and address against his expressed wishes,.

Then you should be willing to post your own..

You have given up the right to hide under your rock.

And throw poison darts. Tell us who.

You are and who you work for and let us.

Decide if you have no ulterior motives...

Comment #150

Like I said I am Googlee Bear's distant cousin.

My real name is Giglee.

I work with Googlee and AdsenseGuy at Google.

My address is 6668 Screw You Lane, Bite Me, CA 90210 - next door to Googlee and AdsenseGuy.

No I mean my address is 2038 Glenada, Oakville, Ontario L6H4M5 Canada.

No wait a minute I mean my address is 4438 Kalar Rd Niagara Falls , Ontario l2h1s8 Canada...

Comment #151

Any news from Adsense Guy?.

Seems to be lost .....

Comment #152

Awesome - congratulations!.

I suggest using a PR Newswire and make a Press Release - dont use the free ones as they just spam..something like ereleases.com should get out to a lot of reporters and I think with a story like that you should generate a ton of attention...

Comment #153

I don't want to negate the importance of the issues being discussed or the belittle how serious this is to the posters, (myself included) but at times, this is one of the funniest threads I have run across. Some of the juxtapositions of the posts are a riot. Good, dysfunctional humor.

"O, what men dare do! What men may do! What men daily do, not knowing what they do!".

W.Shakespeare.

From Much Ado About Nothing (IV, i, 19-21)..

Comment #154

First of all, he had the wrong bear. Secondly, the offer closed before I started my vacation for the simple reason that I will not be well connected for a couple of days (I'm on a high speed connection at a hotel in Vegas for the moment, but am leaving for the Grand Canyon tomorrow). I can't speak for wlspro, since I don't know who he/she is. However, I post under my own name, and I do not work for Google. Having said that, then if you can show that I work for Google, then you can have me disbarred if you like.

But, on the subject of cowardly, I take it you see nothing odd about an anonymous person making a solicitation for maximum publicity for this as-yet unseen but nevertheless important and bizarre legal precedent.

As stated several times earlier, a URL to this thread was posted at another forum in specific response to AG's request. The fact that it brought people over here to discuss it is not surprising in the least. I didn't see anyone else other than Adsenseguy promising to post this important legal precedent, what, nearly two weeks ago, and then disappearing when questions were raised. That sort of behavior doesn't require any outside help to be discredited.

I came here for no other purpose than to find out what this "important legal precedent" was. Now, do you want to tell us about it?..

Comment #155

Good to hear from you again, JB!.

Don't bother about members like dna et al..

Like you, me, and everyone else, they're.

Entitled to their own opinion.

Anyway, everyone here is intelligent enough.

To tell what's right & wrong here.

DNA, what's the big deal w/ the use of.

"Cowardly-Google-Shill-Lawyer"? Can't we.

Debate this in a logical manner?.

I for one would like to see arguments based.

On pure unbiased logic w/o the need to.

Resort to namecalling & the like.

No offense meant, but it bugs me when I see.

People resort to such when there's no need.

For it.

Oh, and welcome to namepros also, wlspro!.

I apologize for not acknowledging your.

Presence here as well.

Hmmm, still no update from AG. I certainly.

Hope nothing bad has happened to him.

'coz we're all still waiting for those court.

Transcripts (if any)!.

People, please, no need to resort to such.

Tactics. We're all civilized and "mature",.

Aren't we?..

Comment #156

A nice name to reg, except that there could be some potential TM issues involved, here.. Generally, well, thankyou, depending on what I do, when I do it, how I do it, where I do it, how well I do it, and with whom I do it. And you?..

Comment #157

Adsense guy will retn to this forum the richest NP'r in history if these posts keep up. LOL.

Oops another 2 NB$$'s..

Comment #158

I think we can all rest easy in knowing that whenever the rich and.

Powerful are threatened, J Berry Hill will rush to their aid...

Comment #159

Huh??.

What rich and powerful person was JB defending.?.

Come on man give the guy a break, what he has said is not only to the point and well researched, it has also told me for one that you shouldnt take everything written here as gospel and there sometimes might be a good deal of b* written.

We have an audience with someone who really does know what he is saying, if it comes across as arrogant then that is only our naivety and lay knowledge coming to the fore...

Comment #160

Apparently my presence has been missed, I dont have to explain to anyone as to my whereabouts but if your interested read this previously posted thread hopefully some of you narrow minded individuals that believe I must report my every move to you will understand. http://www.namepros.com/showthread.p...threadid=41621.

Now I dont feel the need to justify anything involving this case but I do feel compelled to answer a few remarks.

1. Jberryhill points out the registrant issue, In response to that issue All documents were sent to me at my address thus effectually voiding this argument Enom and the UDRP were also made aware of the registrant info prior to court proceedings.

To the A$$holes at ENOM for hiding behind the muse of niknames for identifying my personal information in a open forum all I can say is that this is the kind of company anyone that buys domains from them is dealing with...MY ADVICE DO NOT PURCHASE DOMAINS FROM ENOM OR ENOM RESELLERS. I find it ironic that enoms lawyers would be spending time reading and focusing on Namepros. ( hmm looks like I started a nice thread enjoy the forums).

I had the pleasure of speaking with ENOMS legal counsel ( And what a treat that was) If you ever have to deal with legal issues and ENOM is your registrar forget about customer service.

You can all argue the facts all you want but the fact remains the same I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF the domain in question. If you have any further personal attacks against me, my family, or would like to make any more threatening phone calls by all means feel free to contact me I would never turn down the oppurtunity to meet you in a dark alleyway. But please stop hiding behind annonimity if you have something to say dont just call and make idle threats and then hang up. Thats what cowards and ENOM does.

All documents concerning this case were entered into court including the documents (emails from Brad Bailey @ Enom ) that stated.

Steve,.

The domain was unlocked in error, thus resulting in the transfer of the.

Domain name away from eNom. We have contacted the new registrar in order to.

Either have the domain transferred back to eNom, or have them place a lock.

On the name until the appeal process can be resolved. Once I have a response.

From the registrar, I will pass along any information that I receive back to.

You.

Brad Bailey.

Compliance Manager.

ENom, Inc..

425.883.8860 ext. 204.

5/3/2004 5:14pm.

Now thats customer service folks.

After having spoke with Enoms legal their response is and was for me to contact the new registrar of the domain and deal with them, They also stated that they doubted I will get the domain back. My response is IF THEY FOLLOWED THE COURTS ORDERS THEY WOULDNT HAVE UNLOCKED THE DOMAIN IN ERROR. Which is a crock of $hit.

This forum will not allow PDF's to be uploaded. Admins please conatct me so you could upload the documents. ASAP.

I AM THE LEGAL OWNER OF THE DOMAIN.

I am also not hiding like others now that my personal info has been released against my wishes, which I think the admins should have addressed until I was able to provide the judgment, but however. I invite anyone of you to contact me at 905 357 0982 I dont care if you like me or not but I will not backdown from threats, harassment or even stalkers like it appears I now have...

Comment #161

AG, It seems that you have the impression that someone was attacking you.

I dont think anyone was doing that, I just believe that we would all like to see some more facts on the matter.

The information JB brought to your table seemed less concerned with discrediting you, and more along the lines of reducing your case to rubble. I doubt JB has some personal grudge against you, or that he/anyone here is working for enom.

Just doesnt seem standard...

Comment #162

Darkfire I spoke with them They have clearly indicated to me that they are reading these forums. So one can safely assume they are the ones hiding behind NIKS and giving out personal info, as far as JB is concerned if I wanted to speak with him or if I felt the need to answer all of his questions , I think he should have represented the defendant and I would have done just that. But IMHO there is too many lawyers and they all want to make money off of others misfortunes.

Darkfire, Why should I commit myself to answering any direct questioning if I am not in the presence of a judge? I mean Anything written here will probably be used in court at a later date...

Comment #163

Am interested in reading this..

Couldn't open it.

Any idea why?.

Thanks,.

ST..

Comment #164

Right click and save as.

Then open it..

Comment #165

I was able to open it!.

Thanks AdsenseGuy for sharing and take it easy on yourself!.

You don't have to respond to anyone's questions if you don't want to! Also talking about it on the phone, when someone calls you, may hurt your position/case. Just refer people to the court findings in Canada.

Take care!..

Comment #166

Trust me, being in the domain name industry can be.

VERY customer service unfriendly. But that's being.

On the customer side of the fence.

On the registrar side of the fence, there are lots of.

Checks and balances that need to be made in order.

To protect whoever is the "true" owner of the domain.

Name. Note I put the word "true" in quotation marks.

Because there's really no way of telling who it is.

Except whoever is listed as the registrant.

By your saying legal owner, you mean the domain.

Name was once listed under your personal name.

Or company name? I beg to differ because "legally.

Speaking", whoever is listed as the registrant is the.

"legal owner".

Of course, the courts can say differently so I'll.

Defer to them.

Based on that email you shared here, Brad Bailey.

Gave that answer because he & others at eNom.

Don't want to give you any false hope that they'll.

Be able to get the domain name back.

Sure they may have made an error unlocking the.

Domain prematurely. They're fallible, just like JB.

But it's never easy getting a domain name back.

From another registrar because they have their.

Own policies to stick like glue. Of course, it's eNom's.

Problem but just so you wouldn't expect any magic.

Wands waved or instant miracles performed.

They say they doubt they'll get the domain name.

Back, but they'll at least try. Nothing wrong w/.

Trying.

Anyway, good to hear from you again. I'll have a.

Looksie at that .PDF file.

In any case, needless to say, you started what's.

Arguably the best thread in any domain name forum.

In years!..

Comment #167

Thank you Davezan for the info, and the compliment.

I am sure ENOM will try really really ( wink wink ) hard to get back what they gave away.

After speaking with them earlier today I was left with the attitude that the only way of recovery will be to begin a suit against ENOM at this point. The reasons why I wanted to publicize this is because apparently these registrars work very closely together to keep the large companies happy and dont even think twice about screwing the little people, I for one dont mind spending the money to expose these business practices.

I can quote here all day long just as others have done on numerous occassions in this thread but in the end it means nothing.

Domain is registered.

Domain is taken to NAF for UDRP.

UDRP makes ruling.

Within 10 days as stipulated within UDRP rules.

Court action is begun.

All parties involved are served accordingly.

DOMAIN IS TO REMAIN LOCKED AND IN CARE & CONTROL OF ENOM.

Defendants do not reply.

Judge holds court.

Judge makes ruling.

I Win, but what really do I win No domain, Google will never pay and now I have to sue ENOM for Accidently ( WINK WINK ) giving my domain away While under court order to remain in care and control of it during proceedings.

Lesson learned here is this ICANN, UDRP, NAF have no control all the control is in the registrars hands and they can get away with doing whatever they want. So if you are ever faced with UDRP and lose and follow up with the courts you are guaranteed still to lose because the registrars will do whatever , whenever they want to do. It is my belief that these business practices must be exposed for what they really are. If anyone that reads this thread conducted business in this manner they would be charged with fraud, colusion and whatever else the arresting officers seen fit to charge them with.

If this is the way that business can be conducted by ENOM it makes one wonder what other business tactics they will utilize in other forms of their business ie: drop's and auctions.

On a lighter note it's good to see all the new members here at NP hopefully we can reach 10k in viewers....

And earlier someone mentioned that there wasnt any personal attacks against me, all I can say is since WannabeLegalService PRO posted info about myself we have had threatening telephone calls they dont scare me one bit because I know cowards like that WLSPRO (STILL HIDING UNDER HIS ROCK...Enom) would never show his face to someone like myself for fear I would be the kind of person to actually react to the situation. 1500 plus Pro PIMS allows me not to fear others. and for those of you that dont know what PIMS are Penalty minutes. See if you can crack that case...

Comment #168

OK boys and girls, lets see if we have learned anything in the past couple of weeks.

First look at.

Guide to Ontario Court : http://www.ontariocourts.on.ca/english.htm.

And Canadian Legal Information Institute: http://www.canlii.org/.

Can we find this judge's name anywhere on the list of judges?.

Now that we have established AG's identity is this the same person who has registered msn411.com, yahoo411.com and google411.com? Is it coincidental that these domain names incorporate the registered trademarks MSN, Yahoo and Google in them? Why use famous trademarks in the domain names, are they supposedly name of some new characters in Shrek?.

See: http://www.whois.sc/msn411.com http://www.whois.sc/yahoo411.com http://www.whois.sc/google411.com.

Note that these sites were in fact pointing to http://www.links411.com with clear links to his other two sites.

GmailTrader (http://www.gmailtrader.com) and ForumsNChats (http://www.forumsnchats.com).

I will yield legal matters to our resident expert JB, Esq.

In the meanwhile consider these legal issues: proper service of complaint to foreign persons, jurisdiction, eNom as defendant, trademark issues decided in a small claims court, enforceability of foreign judgments, perjury and presentation of false evidence by plaintiff According to the evidence of the plaintiff & if either party brings a court action ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD within ten days of it's decision, the decision of the Universal Domain Resolution Panel is stayed and the domain name is locked until the courts decision..

According to the UDRP.

4. k. Availability of Court Proceedings..

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 & 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 http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/policy.htm.

The Rules for UDRP states.

Mutual Jurisdiction means a court jurisdiction at the location of either (a) the principal office of the Registrar (provided the domain-name holder has submitted in it's Registration Agreement to that jurisdiction for court adjudication of disputes concerning or arising from the use of the domain name) or (b) the domain-name holder's address as shown for the registration of the domain name in Registrar's Whois database at the time the complaint is submitted to the Provider.

See http://www.icann.org/dndr/udrp/uniform-rules.htm.

Where does the UDRP state if either party brings a court action ANYWHERE IN THE WORLD within ten days of it's decision, the decision of the Universal Domain Resolution Panel is stayed and the domain name is locked until the courts decision..

By the way there is no such thing as Universal Domain Resolution Panel - UDRP refers to Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy...

Comment #169

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!!!!!..

Comment #170

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

Comment #171

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 !!!!!..

Comment #172

[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...

Comment #173

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

Comment #174

"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?..

Comment #175

As you certainly read this document in it's 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/dom.../6_5_98dns.htm..

Comment #176

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...

Comment #177

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??..

Comment #178

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...

Comment #179

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...

Comment #180

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?..

Comment #181

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...

Comment #182

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...

Comment #183

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/attr...1/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 dont 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 individuals phone number in Canada by visiting http://www.canada411.ca/ - the indicated phone number is not listed for AG..

Comment #184

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, it's Berryhill who says No apology needed..

Did you forget what part you were playing?..

Comment #185

This thread was intended to show a ruling of a courts decision about a domain that went to the NAF UDRP. The facts remain the same regardless of all the name calling,personal attacks and postings of personal information ect. The court has ruled on the UDRP's decision that is a fact wheater you like the ruling or dis-like it, The ruling is enforceable.

You all are invited to discuss this until your blue in the face but at this time I respectfully request from all parties that all name calling, inuendos, and direct comments about other members cease at this time. If this crap continues I will have the admins pull this entire post. I for one really dont care what people think of me personally but many remarks in this thread have side tracked the topic itself. New members as well as longtime nameproers hopefully will respect this request.

And may I just add that until this court decision is challenged the facts will remain as they are now. As far as myself personally is concerned the calls that were made to my wife and myself were uncalled for. And yes the day previously to me being in court on this case my wife was diagnosed with a form of cancer. I never asked for anyones pity, nor would I also I never asked for anything else so your accusations surrounding those facts are also unwarrented. Life's events do evolve prior to other events but asking someone to check dates and times would be too much to ask.

As far as my thoughts about specific companies are concerned that is my right. If you happen to work or own one of those companies my thoughts are too bad. And as far as any legal experts that may read or have read this thread are concerned I thought thats what the courts were for to make decisions, sure you can agree or disagree with those decisions but in the end what can you do about it? short of reopening / appealing the decision on behalf of the parties involved there is nothing you can do about the courts decision.

I am also very amused at the many many websites and URLs that have been posted.

Just want to finish up by making a blanket apology to anyone I may have offended in previous threads but I do regard myself as the type of person that will fight back and when pushed I will push back.

So in the end lets discuss the decision itself, if this request isnt acceptable then I respectfully request RJ remove this entire thread...

Comment #186

Wow...what a headache I have after reading this whole thread...you guys have way too much time on your hands!..

Comment #187

Chris, youre just sooooo wrong.

I havent been so excited waiting for the next installment of this thread since, well, since JR was shot.....

Which poses another question, in relative terms, which one of us is Bobby, JR, Pammy, Sue Ellen etc .....

So, can I ask a simple question, cos it's killing me, is this you wlspro?? http://www.domainstate.com/showthrea...threadid=11792 http://www.lowcostnames.com/cgi-bin/...ner=wlspro.com.

And what happened to your web site if it is??..

Comment #188

LOL - no collieri it is not - but nice try.

The real question here is this - are these domains registered by AG and if so why and what happened to those websites??.

Msn411.com - yahoo411.com - google411.com - nbc2004olympics.com - americavotes2004cnn.com - 1800hiltons.com - embassysuiteniagara.com - adsebsetalk.com.

[edited] url for whois info removed to conform to Armstrong's rules.

If you are sophisticated enough you can find the whois on your own.

These all have valid and famous trademarks incorporated in them...

Comment #189

WHOIS is public information. You can post links to a WHOIS server if you see fit, we're only asking that you do not post private information such as email addresses and phone numbers in the forum.

You can make the same point with a simple link such as http://www.whois.sc/namepros.com..

Comment #190

RJ, providing a valid telephone number for your domain name registration is a requirement and not optional. You should update your info to ensure the registration of namepros.com is not cancelled.

This info is already listed in your ronjames.us registration.

You may also like to know that ronjames.net is being deleted soon...

Comment #191

This is somewhat off-topic, but if you look again, you'll see a valid phone number in the whois info for namepros.com. All the "NA's" are result of eNom's registrar transfer from NetSol, but the admin contact has all valid info...

Comment #192

Incase the whole googlee bear thing was never cleared up, I dont have time to search the whole thread and check, this is what I found.

Googly Bear is Mike Wazowski's nickname in the movie monsters inc.

See http://www.epinions.com/content_47025852036.

And http://homepage.ntlworld.com/alm005/monsters%20inc.htm.

For proof of that fact.

In a scene where mike wazowski was on a date with a girl, the girl called him "googly bear".

Its too late and the character wasn't in shrek or I would have had a chance at $100.

With this information I personally do not see any trademark violations..

Comment #193

In that case you may want to register GOOGLYMAIL.COM instead of GOOGLEEMAIL.COM which is still available for your taking.

Be forewarned that if you make commercial use of this domain name you may be found infringing on Disney & Pixar rights, in addition to Google's. Your acknowledgement of this mark as indicated in your thread would constitute bad faith registration and use in violation of UDRP as well as trademark laws.

Also GOOGLY is a registered trademark of K.C. Confectionery, Ltd., GOOGLY EYES of Klutz CORPORATION and OOGLY GOOGLY of, Marguerite Marshall...

Comment #194

Just a thought .. not related to this topic.. Is this the largest thread on NP.....

Comment #195

AG, dna, in a way (though not needed), you can "thank".

Me for bringing JB & Wlspro here, though it was not.

Intentional. (unless wlspro & JB already knew.

Of this forum but only decided recently to join the fray).

I first posted that because I thought it was something.

For others to "emulate". But now, I'm no longer sure it.

Was something worth "emulating". Excuse me, dna, but I was NEVER intimidated by.

Wlspro or anyone. And I doubt wlspro was accusing.

Me of anything (even if he did, so what?).

It's just that I later felt conscientious about having.

Started the thread after realizing the implications my.

Action that time created.

Like it or not, we all have a responsibility for every.

Action we take, including the words we post in forums.

Like these. And I definitely don't want to do anything.

That'll undermine my credibility, especially when I.

Want to help someone in a domain name forum. With no end in sight?..

Comment #196

Goodness, it is becoming almost civil around here. I wonder if attendence will suffer.

The sub-theme is what particularly interests me here. I am curious about the true underlying intentions of some of the participants, and the real purpose that may be imbedded in some of the posts. How much, of this is actual Machiavellian scheming, and how much of it is merely the draw of a good p~ssing match?.

And why is the speed of light finite? - and - Where does all of the energy and mass go to after entering a black hole?.

Why am I here? Stimulates a particular thought process complex that needs to be exercised from time to time, and there are some posts that I am still getting a kick out of.

Peace to all of you...

Comment #197

Has anyone tried searching googlee bear in google? Look at the first thing that comes up..

Comment #198

I heard there was a funds raising presentation by the CENCOURSE team recently - it seems they are combining multimedia, mobile phones, education and entertainment - pretty cool stuff - first round financing?! I believe the main company is CENCOURSE with a few divisions (one called something Quest.) No comments from them regarding the GMAIL stuff - but it could get interesting.

THe Precision Research company seems to be doing lots of things based on the website - design, website, biz plans, and the owner seems to be a entrepreneur-whiz.

As I see it, only 3 applicants have a shot at the mark: CENCOURSE, which first filed for the mark and is in use, PRECISION RESEARCH, which filed a few days later and has claimed to have been using it since 1998? after the owner Milo Cripps abandoned his earlier application, and of course, GOOGLE. A slippery point, though, according to the USPTO database - why did Cripps abandon his gmail application in 1999 - if he thought it was such a valuable IP.

The other 2 applicants, the Brit company and Gospel Music, filed in other classes, newletters and publications, which shouldn't confuse people with email services. Interesting that the Brit company filed for g-mail - for email services in May.

Whatever happens, this will be a lengthy decision, and why would GOOGLE want to go this route? Then, again, with all the cash they have now, they can do pretty much whatever they want.

I think Google is a great company, contrary to the opinions expressed here, but it just made a few mistakes during the growing pain process. and the service will probably be more popular that Yahoo's. As far as who gets GMAIL, this willbe determined by the USPTO - unless Google.....

Comment #199

I'm w/ you, and if you were to take a vote, my bet is that most of the other members, including those posting here, would agree.

I mean, when you come right down to it, what a great service! Over the past 2-3 years I doubt that there ihas been another visible entity that has had more impact on the internet, and until recently, they have operated relatively snag-free. Even Google's detractors, must, at least, admire their rapid growth, and the sheer impact the company has had on the net, over such a short period of time..

But, in addition to admiration,- (this is not necessarily reflecting on the participants of this thread- that would be for them to determine)- familiarity and success, are often followed by contempt, imitation, and exploitation. My2c..

Comment #200

GOOGLE is one of the great Internet stories - formed in a garage by graduate students - this not another NETSCAPE one wonder-hyped deal - this company has the potential to become another APPLE, with it's unique culture, innovation, branding -.

Maybe it lacks a Steve JOBS as evangelist but what a story!.

As far as the trademark imbroglios, they will deal with it. Remember Microsoft screwed up with xBox and had to make payment, if I recall - and APPLE had a problem with rendezvous.

GOOGLE should have no problems with froogle, I'm feeling lucky - GMAIL - that's another story - actually, I'm surprised this didn't get more press - give the companies (the ones that filed before GOOGLE, with marks already in commerce) credit for not going to the Press -.

Let's hope GOOGLE's successful IPO will stimulate the tech economy and inspire more persons with creating innovative technology...

BRAVO to GOOGLE let's hope they remain clean at "doing no evil".

I was just told GOOGLE is now the owner of the Precison research domain, that the owner claims to have reached an agreement with GOOGLE - so maybe GOOGLE has already reached an agreement with the early claimants - end of story and maybe all the gmailers can rest easy now - if GOOGLE hasn't already reached an agreement with the companies that filed under email services, you can bet they will soon - at least I think - then they can get past the uncertainty and really develop a kickass email service. Changing the name won't be catastophic, but it would get out in the press, which is something it should avoid now that it's in the public eye -.

One thing for certain - I'll bet Google files marks way in advance next time they announce the upcoming launch of a product or service - GO GOOGLE!..

Comment #201

Boy, I missed quite a bit here while on vacation ... Having fun is important, John ... hope you had that -and- did well in Vegas!.

See you soon...

Comment #202

A default judgment in a Canadian Small Claims Court with no jurisdiction over the defendant in the amount of $610?.

That's it? Where's the part about getting the domain name back? (small claims courts, btw, generally can only order monetary relief to fixed, and low, limits, and cannot order injunctive relief - i.e. actually requiring people to *do* something).

And it took two weeks to post a pdf of a fax that was sent on the 14th?.

There are a couple of things worth pointing out here, if anyone cares about how the real world works. First, Rule 4(k) permits a party to go to court in a specified jurisdiction (not any jurisdiction in the world) for a determination of whether the registration was lawful. You'll note that this small claims court proceeding only relates to recovery of a claim in the amount of $610 - the statement of facts supporting that claim to $610 is, of course, repeated verbatim from the plaintiff's statement of facts, since Google didn't bother, and didn't need to bother, to show up.

I'd love to see him try to collect that $610.

And as far as the accusation that I post under multiple identities, DNA. Would you care to put your name behind that accusation?..

Comment #203

J Berry Hill,.

How nice of you to come back and threaten to sue me..

Just when I thought we were all done here..

I would prefer to think of what you call accusations.

As legitimate questions, under the strange circumstances.

In which you seem to be connected at the hip to.

A lawyer that you dont know. If a strange lawyer.

Followed me from forum to forum to help me.

Bully forum members who dared to disagree with.

Me, I think would ask him who he was.

However, I am quite happy to admit that I dont have.

Any idea who Wlspro is, and I have no knowledge that.

You post under multiple identities.

However, I would like to point out the lawsuit.

That you said didnt exist, does exist. The Googly Bear does.

Exist. Your charge that AdsenseGuy is a snake-oil.

Salesman is not proven. You have clearly defamed.

AdsenseGuys character. Maybe you should worry about.

AdsenseGuy suing you...

Comment #204

It doesn't exist in the context that AdsenseGuy said it does (no googly bear in the movie "Shrek")..

Comment #205

Jberryhill and wlspro came into this forum to harm one of it's members.

With charges that have now proven to be false. I believe.

That they should be banned from this forum...

Comment #206

While I am quite sure that Berryhill and Wlspro are two separate and.

Completely independent carbon life forms, it is funny how they both.

Like to use the term "snake oil salesman" when referring to AdsenseGuy...

Comment #207

Loveing the well researched responces fellz dont let it anger you thow.

Also Googlee Bear is from monsters inc... was that from this thread?..

Comment #208

Lets get the facts straight:.

1) No one ever found any sign of Googlee Bear anywhere.

2) There has been mention of Googly Bear which is a different term. As previously noted Googly is not only considered intellectual property of Disney and Pixar for it's use in Monsters Inc it is a registered trademark of three other parties. Any commercial use of the term Googly, such as a commercial email service offered by AG, would constitute an infringement on those rights. This is similar to improperly offering email services under SupermanMail.com, MickeyMouseMail.com or ShrekMail.com.

3) Even if Googly was available for commercial use, as argued by AG, he should have registered GooglyMail.com and not GoogleeMail.com for the non-existent Googlee.

4) AG did not register GooglyMail.com and did not argue Googly Bear was his inspiration, he rather registered GoogleeMail.com indicating the non-existent Googlee Bear as the reason.

5) You should note that the judge actually mentions yet a third version of the term, Googleqleebear in which case we would have to find the court sited bear named Googleqlee Bear (not a single search result) and AG should have registered the domain name GoogleqleeMail.com...

Comment #209

Sorry, dna. Believe all you want, but that's for this forum's.

Moderators to decide if they should be banned or not.

So far, the moderators haven't banned them. Tough luck.

BTW, the facts are already laid out, yet you seem to have.

Trouble accepting them. What gives?.

Oops, I forgot that Sir Francis Bacon once said something.

Like the human mind only chooses facts that supports its.

Belief & disregards those that don't so that it's belief.

Remains inviolate.....

Comment #210

I'm completely mystified. Did you read that .pdf?.

This was a small claims court proceeding over a claim of $610. Google didn't bother to show up, because there is no way on earth that this court had jurisdiction over the matter, which was filed (a) in the wrong place under the rules of the UDRP, and (b) was not even the kind of action allowed under Section 4(k) of the UDRP - i.e. it was not even addressed to the underlying trademark issue, because small claims courts don't rule on trademark claims. The extent of this deputy judge's knowledge of the UDRP can be inferred from the repeated reference to the "Universal Domain Resolution Panel" instead of the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute Resolution Policy.

And if you are still resistant to understanding anything in the previous paragraph, then simply quote where anyone is directed to return the domain name to Mr. Alek. The only thing the judge orders is reimbursement of $610 Mr. Alek claims to have lost. Where did I say a lawsuit didn't exist?.

May I jog your memory a bit: Small claims courts, however, do operate much like traffic courts. And, yes, my most charitable assumption was that this was a default proceeding in a totally irrelevant court.

Yes, if you too want a judgment against Google, then you can wander into a small claims court in Djibouti and get one.

So, you believe "The Googly Bear does exist".

You'll note that the judge states that all of the plaintiff's allegations are taken as fact, since there was nobody else there. We can also see that the judge refers to a bear of some sort in the movie Shrek with a name that is a variant of some form of "Googlee".

Lying to a court is a very serious matter, even if nobody else is there.

So I ask, once more with feeling, where in the movie Shrek is this bear?.

And, again to jog your memory DNA, I was the first person in this thread to point out the reference to "Googly bear" as a nickname in Monsters Inc. You will further note that in the context of that reference in Monsters Inc. there was no bear character whatsoever.

Finally, you can check out the posting histories of the various people who Davezan brought here from another place. I do not know wlspro, and I don't see where he said he was a lawyer.

Now that we know the identity of the deputy judge, and since Adsenseguy has previously informed us that the judge has made himself and his staff available for inquiries, then we know where to direct our inquiries...

Comment #211

Just wondering if anyone has done this, though I doubt it if anyone.

Is willing to waste time & resources for a venture w/o gain.....

Comment #212

Posted by Wlspro in Domain State:.

"Davezan, there is no case, no document details to be posted,.

And no need for Google to appeal. Are you related to this.

AdsenseGuy trying to promote his scam?"..

Comment #213

Your point? I already replied both here and there...

Comment #214

Dna, there was nothing newsworthy here, nothing of relevance or importance whatsoever.

Reminds me of this guy who was standing on the Canadian side of the Niagara Falls, pi$$ing down next to it. He was so impressed with the splash he was making he wanted the news media to cover it.

Guess what, it was not covered by anyone because it was not newsworthy and of no importance to anyone. I would argue it was nothing, you seem to think it was a great feat.

This whole matter reported by AG is a non-issue. Google thinks it is nothing, eNom thinks it is nothing, the industry thinks it is nothing, the news media think it is nothing - only you and AG seem to think it is something.

Google keeps the domain name as it's ownership was never put to question, even by the Deputy Judge (who is not even mentioned on the Canadian list approved judges).

There is nothing to appeal. Google will not appeal because this court case means nothing.

AG gets nothing except for a decision he can proudly frame next to the picture of the other guy from Niagara Falls mentioned above. At best it might be therapeutic for AG - making a big splash next to the other Niagara Falls guy...

Comment #215

Wlspro, the only issue that I care about is the behavier of you and.

J Berryhill in this forum...

Comment #216

Well that is unfortunate. I, for one, came here to learn of a precedent setting legal decision, and all we have here is a default small claims proceeding for $610, obtained on the basis of an outright fabrication concerning a non-existent character in the movie Shrek...

Comment #217

They are the 2 people that have made the most sense in this thread. IMO..

Comment #218

J Berryhill,.

Do you feel that if you say something that isn't true with.

Sarcasism, that it isn't a lie. Let me tell you that it is..

You ask "where did I say a lawsuit didn't exist?".

Anyone can look at your first post and grasp that that.

Is what you are saying and that it is the basis of your attack.

On AdsenseGuy. Wlspro said directly that there was no case.

You should have admitted that you were wrong.

About there being a lawsuit, but you think that your sarcasms.

Somehow protect you. They don't. Anyone can read.

Your first post who wants to know the truth.

And your sarcasm really isn't very clever...

Comment #219

This one doesn't recquire a tape measure. Now that the lense has been cleared of the errant spray, it is easier to see what stream landed the farthest away. I wonder how the guy at Niagara Falls would fare?.

Nevertheless, this has been one rollicking good thread...

Comment #220

Wow, Grrilla has 1,399 posts..

I hope the others were better than this...

Comment #221

A little bitter, there, huh, DNA? Now you are resorting to making indiscriminate personal attacks on anyone that posts here, regardless of the content of the post, which in this case, was a light hearted approach to suggesting that everyone lighten up, and perhaps give a chuckle to someone.. Anyone with a modicum of sense, can already see what has gone on here.

I won't be drawn into the mental loop that you have created for yourself- your matrix. I have no need or desire to defend my posts or to reply to your personal attack. Your own posts shed more than enough light on what you are about, and anything I could add would only detract from what you have already reflected upon yourself and your character..

PS Make that 1400..

Comment #222

I'm not sure that should be concidered a personal attack..

I just think if you have nothing to say, you should say nothing..

You are the one making the personal attack...

Comment #223

It looks like a duck, it walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, so it must be a rhinoceros. Whatever. Good luck and no ill feelings here. DNA...

Comment #224

DNA,.

You have questioned others motives. Now I want to know:.

Why do you have a so much more than casual interest in defending adsense guy?..

Comment #225

I don't know AdsenseGuy. But, I concider these trademark.

Lawyers to be a threat. Apparently even years are now being trademarked..

Is someone supposed to go to court to fight for a domain name worth only.

A few hundred dollars? Companies are using these trademarks to steal.

Domain names they have no right to. And every trademark gives companies.

The right to challenge the ownership of thousands of similiar names..

One of the reasons these lawyers were calling AdsenseGuy a snake oil.

Salesman was just for owning domain names that were similiar to.

Trademark names. This does not make you a snake oil salesman. There are companies.

That use trademarks defensively and don't bother anyone who violates them.

And I think that is fine. But what the olympic committee and Google do.

Is not right. I think you should question why two lawyers are spending so.

Much energy attacking AdsenseGuy. Lawyers don't work for nothing.

All of my domain names are very generic and no one has ever accused me.

Of violating a trademark...

Comment #226

DNA, theres nothing sinister here. Let it go. This is a case of someone wanting to be a big shot and in the end, looking foolish. The more you post in support, the more you are cast in that same light. Let it go...

Comment #227

Such lawyers work for both sides. Domainers sometimes need TM lawyers. If you are ever in need of professional help, JB would be a great choice, as he has been known to work for domainers fighting TM overreach in the past...

Comment #228

Armstrong, can you tell me (and probably a good deal many others), when do we 'live happily ever after' with regards this thread??.

Can anything else be said??..

Comment #229

While everyone's probably formed their own conclusions by this time with regards to this particular topic, I don't see a need to close this thread. Do you? Perhaps if we let AG or DNA have the last word (if they are so inclined), then we can all 'let it go' at that...

Comment #230

I just want to add my 2 cents here.

How can you support:.

Someone who is *obviously* abusing a company's trademark.

And then, he comes and posts it as a victory like he's done good.

I don't know this adsense guy but there is no way in the world he registered it for some googlee bear as there is no such thing!.

If the bear is called googly then he should have gotten GooglyMail.com.

This is just ridiculous and it's very sad to see a member of namepros act in this fashion.

Not to mention the companies that registered the TM gmail when they knew google was going to use it as their name..

But.. Whatever..

Comment #231


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.