[ga] Re: [Politech] Public Citizen wins nice victory in car dealer criticcase [fs]

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul and all,

  I agree many law firms would and are happy to run the meter and
a few understand what ICANN and WIPO have hoist upon the
vast majority of stakeholders/users without their consent and in
their names.

  I also agree that good law firms and lawyers would like very
much to have something to tell their clients other than "File Suit".
Unfortunately all they can tell them is to pony up $1500.00US
and take your chances with WIPO's UDRP/RDRP.  In which
the small stakeholder/user or Ecommerce business person
almost always looses unjustly, as has been well documented.
But again, unfortunately telling a client such a thing in all honesty
is likely not well received, and solves little or nothing.

  Hence why more and more "Public Citizen's" must sue
to have even an even chance of getting a fair and honest
resolution.

So I think we have come again full circle here, haven't we?

And so, this disgusting and disruptive saga continues...

Paul Levy wrote:

> it is not ICANN and WIPO who need to get the word, but the run of the
> mill trademark lawyer whose client comes to him with the problem and
> tells him to file suit.
>
> Many lawyers are glad to run the meter -- and many truly believe in the
> cause -- but many I think do not particularly like being cast in the
> role of crusher of dissent, and would welcome something they can tell
> their clients
>
> Paul Alan Levy
> Public Citizen Litigation Group
> 1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
> Washington, D.C. 20009
> (202) 588-1000
> http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html
>
> >>> Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> 09/30/03 05:14AM >>>
> Declan, Paul and all,
>
>   Thank you Paul and Declan for passing the interesting case along.
> We all can only hope that the folks at WIPO and ICANN will
> eventually get the proper message that you Paul, rightly pointed
> out in your comments and remarks below.  But somehow I have
> my doubts that they shall given the Business and IP constituencies
> strangle hold on the ICANN BoD and WIPO.
>
> Declan McCullagh wrote:
>
> > ---
> >
> > Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2003 15:57:40 -0400
> > From: "Paul Levy" <PLEVY@xxxxxxxxxxx>
> > To: <declan@xxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Encouraging IP lawyers to stop and think before they
> sue......
> >
> > My colleague Amanda Frost has had a nice development recently in a
> case
> > filed in federal court in Alabama against a Tom Ballock, a consumer
> who
> > established a web site about a local car dealer.
> > http://www.crownpontiacnissan.com/
> >
> > The dealer rushed into court and got a preliminary injunction
> against
> > Ballock, who defended himself pro se.  Amanda then got involved and
> > persuade the judge to lift the preliminary injunction.  After taking
> > Ballock's deposition, the plaintiff gave up and dismissed the suit.
> > There is an account of the progress of the litigation on Ballock's
> site:
> >   http://www.crownpontiacnissan.com/lawsuit.shtml#settlement_filed
> >
> > Lat week, the judge granted our motion for an award of damages
> against
> > the preliminary injunction bond that was wrongfully issued against
> > Ballock.  The judge explained why the injunction should not have
> been
> > granted -- although Ballock uses the dealer's name in his domain
> name,
> > there is a very strong disclaimer of affiliation at the top of his
> site,
> > so nobody could be confused, and the site was completely
> noncommercial.
> > Consequently  and then gives Ballock $766.45 in out of pocket
> expenses,
> > $4000 in mental anguish damages, and $2000 for the injury to his
> free
> > speech rights.  (The judge was also quite complementary to Amanda,
> > making clear that Ballock's ultimate victory was due to his securing
> > "highly competent representation" after he received  the preliminary
> > injunction).
> >
> > The case stands as yet another reminder to IP attorneys to stop and
> > think  before they bring questionable trademark claims against
> > individual dissenters in the hope that they can smash them before
> they
> > can get a lawyer.  Sometimes, even a win on a quick preliminary
> > injunction can come back to haunt their clients!
> >
> > Paul Alan Levy
> > Public Citizen Litigation Group
> > 1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
> > Washington, D.C. 20009
> > (202) 588-1000
> > http://www.citizen.org/litigation/litigation.html
> > _______________________________________________
> > Politech mailing list
> > Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
> > Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> Jeffrey A. Williams
> Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
> "Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
>     Pierre Abelard
> ===============================================================
> CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
> Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801

Regards,

--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 131k members/stakeholders strong!)
"Be precise in the use of words and expect precision from others" -
    Pierre Abelard
===============================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801