[ga] Re: Downloading opinion awarding damages for injunction against web site

[Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Paul and all former DNSO GA members or other interested parties,

Paul Levy wrote:

> In any event, if people would like to file away the actual decision for
> future use, it can be found on Ballock's web site at
> http://www.crownpontiacnissan.com/images/docs/sorted/MemorandumOpinion.pdf,

 Good stuff here.

>
>
> or on the Litigation Group's web site at
> http://www.citizen.org/documents/MemorandumOpinion.pdf
>
> FWIW, we are about to face another one of these domain name cases, as
> Jerry Falwell has initiated UDRP proceedings against the owner of the
> anti-Falwell web site www.fallwell.com

  Yeah well, Jerry Falwell is frequently getting involved in these
sorts of situations. Looks like he missed ICANN's "Sunrise
period".  >:)  In any event I can't see how he has exclusive
rights or Superior rights to "Falwell.com".  Besides he
has his own Domain and website at  http://www.jerryfalwell.com/
but I took  particular notice that he did not register a TM or SM
by that name or Domain Name either.  So no biscuit for him
at the alter, so to speak....  >:)

  I also noticed that http://www.holyfather.com/ is available,
so maybe Jerry can "Snap" this one up?  And unfortunately
for jerry, http://www.pope.com is already taken...

 But I am sure that Joe Baptista could reserve Jerryfalwell.god
and Farwell.god for for him...  So praise god, and pass the
Domain Names, eh!  >;)

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

>
>
> 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 10:22PM >>>
> 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

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