Wednesday, April 15, 2015
Nevada Attorney Marc Randazza who filed a SLAPP Lawsuit AGAINST his former client, Blogger Crystal Cox to SUPRESS her Speech and is NOT really a First Amendment Advocate for all. And even illegally and unethically uses Trademark Law to Chill Speech, Well he is accused of Bribes connected to Nevada Slapp Law, Check it Out.
Thursday, January 24, 2013
THE LANHAM ACT" to Steal Domain Names, Intellectual Property and Suppress Free Speech, Avoid First Amendment Rights of Defendants. Latest Attorney Scam to BULLY Domainers, Bloggers, Online Media and Citizen Journalist.
A discussion on the Lanham Act and Domain Names.
"THE LANHAM ACT AS IT APPLIES TO DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES
The Lanham Act was originally enacted as the Trademark Act of 1946. It has been amended several times. It is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1127.1
The Lanham Act provides remedies for both trademark infringement and trademark dilution. There is now, in addition, theAnticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999.2 These are all discussed below.
Dilution deals with marks as a "source indicators." This term refers to the ability of a mark to identify a user and/or its products and services. One of the most important aspects of using marks as source indicators is the reputation of a user and how that affects the public’s perception of the mark.
Dilution occurs when a junior user uses a senior trademark user’s mark in a commercial context in a way that lessens the power of the senior user’s mark as a source indicator.4
There are two forms of dilution.
The first is dilution by tarnishment, which is the diminishing of the power of the senior user’s mark because of its association with the negative aspects or connotations of the junior user’s use of the mark.
The second is dilution by blurring, which is when the power of the senior user’s mark is decreased because of the blurring of the mark’s distinctive quality caused by the existence of the junior user’s mark.
In a dilution cause of action, the plaintiff must show that its mark is famous and that the junior user is using its mark in a commercial context. In order to determine whether a mark is famous, Congress set out eight nonexclusive factors that a court may consider.5
There are three uses that Congress made non-actionable under the dilution section of the Lanham Act. They are, briefly, fair use of a famous mark for comparative advertising or promotion, noncommercial use, and all forms of news reporting and commentary.6
A plaintiff can establish liability by showing the following. The plaintiff must show that the defendant has a bad faith intent to profit from the mark. The plaintiff must also show that the defendant has registered, trafficked in, or uses a domain name that is identical to, confusingly similar to, or in the case of a famous mark, is dilutive of the plaintiff’s mark.8 Congress provided nine non-exclusive factors for a court to consider in order to determine bad faith under this section.9
The ACPA applies not only to protected marks, but also to protected personal names.10 The Cyberpiracy Protection for Individuals Act,11 which applies specifically to "any person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, without that person’s consent, with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name. . ."12
Generally, the remedy for a trademark violation is injunctive. In the case of the ACPA, Congress allowed courts to order the cancellation or forfeiture of domain names that violate the trademark owner’s rights.13
III. "SUCKS.COM" CASES UNDER THE LANHAM ACTTo date, there have been two "sucks.com" cases decided under the Lanham Act. It is very unlikely that there will be any more.
In Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber,14 Bally brought a trademark infringement and dilution suit against Faber after Faber created and registered a website called www.compupix.com/ballysucks. This site, which no longer exists, was dedicated to complaints about Bally. The case was resolved before the ACPA was enacted.
The court immediately concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between Bally and Ballysucks.com because they are not "related goods" and dismissed the infringement claim.
Although the court dismissed the infringement claim, it still discussed how the case would come out under the most common likelihood of confusion test, found in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats.15 The court most likely did this because this was the first case of its kind and the court wanted to establish some official position on the matter.
The Sleekcraft test uses eight factors to determine whether a defendant’s use of a plaintiff’s trademark creates a likelihood of confusion. The factors are:
Bally asserted that the goods were in close proximity because both used the Internet and because it had a complaint section on its own website. The court found, however, that the sites did not compete, even though they were both on the Internet. This is because Bally’s is a commercial site while Faber’s site is for the purpose of consumer commentary. The factor leaned in favor of Faber.
Bally presented no evidence of actual confusion. Bally argued that the confusion would be patently obvious due to the similarity of the marks. The court, however, found that a reasonably prudent user would not mistake Faber’s site and the official Bally’s site. This factor leaned in favor of Faber.
Bally argued that the marketing channels used, namely the Internet, were identical. The court found that the overlap of marketing channels was irrelevant because Faber’s site was not a commercial use of the mark. This factor was neutral or slightly in favor of Faber.
Bally argues that an Internet user may accidentally access Faber’s site when searching for Bally’s site on the web. The court dismissed this because Faber does not actually use Bally’s trademark. It further points out that an Internet user searching with a search engine may want all the information available on Bally’s and is entitled to more than Bally’s own site. This factor leaned in favor of Faber.
The court found, and Bally agreed to some extent, that in the context of consumer commentary, Faber was entitled to use Bally’s mark. In fact, he had to use Bally’s mark in some way to identify what he was criticizing. This factor was neutral.
Bally conceded that there was no likelihood of the two parties expanding into each other’s lines of business. For this reason, the last factor leaned in favor of Faber.17
In concluding its discussion of likelihood of confusion, the court stated that "applying Bally’s argument would extend trademark protection to eclipse First Amendment rights. The courts, however, have rejected this approach by holding that trademark rights may be limited by First Amendment concerns."18
Under the dilution claim, Bally argued that there was dilution by tarnishment because Faber also had pornographic websites linked from the compupix.com site.
The court found that Faber had engaged in no commercial use of the Bally name due to the nature of the website. The court also concluded that there was no tarnishment. In so deciding, the court said that if tarnishment existed in this case, "it would be an impossible task to determine dilution on the Internet."19 The court went on to point out that to include "linked sites as grounds for finding commercial use or dilution would extend the statute far beyond its intended purpose of protecting trademark owners from use that have the effect of ‘lessening. . . the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services.’"20
For these reasons, the court ruled in favor of Faber.
In the other "sucks.com" Lanham Act, Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Lucentsucks.com,21 the court did not get beyond the jurisdictional issues to reach the merits. However, the court acknowledged in dicta that had the case reached the merits, the court probably would have reached a decision similar the one reached in Bally.22
The remaining "sucks.com" cases have been decided under the UDRP.
IV. THE UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICYOn October 24, 1999, ICANN adopted its Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.23 Since then, the UDRP has been used by domain name dispute resolution panels, most notably those associated with WIPO, to rule on domain name disputes. A number of these disputes have involved "sucks.com" websites.
Part of the registration process for a getting a domain name includes acceptance of the UDRP. A domain name owner can lose its rights to the domain name if it violates the UDRP.24
Section 4 of the UDRP explains the mandatory administrative proceeding that any domain name owner could be subject to. This proceeding occurs when a third party complainant asserts that the domain name owner has used a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark, that the domain name owner does not have rights or legitimate interests in the name, and that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.25
The UDRP lists four non-exclusive factors to be considered in determining bad faith.26
The remedies sought in a UDRP proceedings are the cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the complainant owner of the mark.27
The UDRP proceeding does not prevent its loser from taking the case to court following the conclusion of the proceeding.28
V. "SUCKS.COM" CASES UNDER THE UDRPA number of "sucks.com" cases have been heard by panels using the UDRP’s mandatory administrative procedure. These hearings have come out strongly in the opposite direction from the court cases under the Lanham Act.
At one point, in fact, nine of the eleven "sucks.com" cases heard under the UDRP, had been decided in favor of the original mark owner, with the other two hearings awaiting decisions.29
A notable recent example of a UDRP hearing is Diageo plc v. John Zuccarini, Individually and t/a Cupcake Patrol.30 Diageo, formerly known as Guinness plc, the owner of the company and brewery that produces Guinness beer, brought this proceeding against Zuccarini after Zuccarini registered eleven domain names, all variations on the theme of "Guinness beer sucks."31
Previously, Diageo had brought a hearing against Zuccarini for his registration of guinnes.com. It claimed that Zuccarini’s registration of the eleven Guinness _____sucks.com sites were in direct retaliation for its having done this.32
In deciding on Zuccarini’s liability, the panel33 first looked at the question of whether the domain names were identical or confusingly similar to Diageo’s mark. Because the marks were not identical, the panel looked to whether they were confusingly similar. The panel decided that the domain names were confusingly similar.
In doing so, it relied on precedent from a previous hearing in which a panel held that "the confusingly similar test may be held to a different standard when used with Internet search engines."34
The panel also used the same Sleekcraft test for likelihood of confusion that the court used in Bally.35 However, the panel acknowledged that there were some difficulties in applying the test to a domain name dispute. Nevertheless, because neither party objected, the test was used.36
The panel found that Diageo had a very strong mark.
The panel found that although the parties were in different line of trade, the fact that there were beer references in a number of Zuccarini’s domain names was enough to establish some kind of proximity.
The panel found that because the word "guinness" appeared at the beginning of each of the domain names, there was at least some similarity between the marks.
There was no evidence of actual confusion. However, the panel found that it was unrealistic to require such evidence, especially because Zuccarini’s domain names had not actually been used for active websites.
When considering the marketing channels, the panel again pointed out the distinction between trademarks and domain names. It did accept, however, the assertion that a search using a search engine would likely point out the domain names in dispute.
The panel was unsure of how to interpret the question of the degree care exercised by the purchaser. Of particular concern was the fact that "sucks" is an American slang word and may not be familiar to all English speakers, let alone all Internet users. Because of this, the panel envisioned "circumstances where Internet users are not aware of the abusive connotations of the word and consequently associate the domain name with the owner of the trademark."37
The panel found that Zuccarini had no legitimate reason to select the marks to use for the domain name and that there was no evidence of any likelihood that either party would expand its product lines.
Based on its consideration of the UDRP standards and the Sleekcraft factors, the panel decided that Zuccarini had no legitimate interest in the Guinness name, and that his registering the "sucks.com" websites was primarily to disrupt Diageo’s business and was therefore done in bad faith.38
Based on its findings, the panel ordered that all eleven domain names be transferred to Diageo.39
While the panel did decide in favor of the Diageo, it did so at least in part because Zuccarini made no response to Diageo’s allegations, which the panel felt established prima facie cases for the elements needed under the UDRP.40
The Bally court focused in the end on the fact that First Amendment rights trump Trademark law. The panel in this case was more concerned by the fact that a test designed for trademark law was used in a decision also involving domain names, stating that "it is obvious that there remains many areas of doubt as to how the various elements of the test can be transposed in its application to disputes involving a comparison of domain names and trademarks."41 "
Source
http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/cls01/hamer3.html
Also Check Out
http://stateofnevadacase212-cv-02040-gmn-pal.blogspot.com/
"First Amendment rights trump Trademark law."
"THE LANHAM ACT AS IT APPLIES TO DOMAIN NAME DISPUTES
The Lanham Act was originally enacted as the Trademark Act of 1946. It has been amended several times. It is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1127.1
The Lanham Act provides remedies for both trademark infringement and trademark dilution. There is now, in addition, theAnticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999.2 These are all discussed below.
- A. INFRINGEMENT
- B. DILUTION
Dilution deals with marks as a "source indicators." This term refers to the ability of a mark to identify a user and/or its products and services. One of the most important aspects of using marks as source indicators is the reputation of a user and how that affects the public’s perception of the mark.
Dilution occurs when a junior user uses a senior trademark user’s mark in a commercial context in a way that lessens the power of the senior user’s mark as a source indicator.4
There are two forms of dilution.
The first is dilution by tarnishment, which is the diminishing of the power of the senior user’s mark because of its association with the negative aspects or connotations of the junior user’s use of the mark.
The second is dilution by blurring, which is when the power of the senior user’s mark is decreased because of the blurring of the mark’s distinctive quality caused by the existence of the junior user’s mark.
In a dilution cause of action, the plaintiff must show that its mark is famous and that the junior user is using its mark in a commercial context. In order to determine whether a mark is famous, Congress set out eight nonexclusive factors that a court may consider.5
There are three uses that Congress made non-actionable under the dilution section of the Lanham Act. They are, briefly, fair use of a famous mark for comparative advertising or promotion, noncommercial use, and all forms of news reporting and commentary.6
- C. CYBERPIRACY PREVENTION
A plaintiff can establish liability by showing the following. The plaintiff must show that the defendant has a bad faith intent to profit from the mark. The plaintiff must also show that the defendant has registered, trafficked in, or uses a domain name that is identical to, confusingly similar to, or in the case of a famous mark, is dilutive of the plaintiff’s mark.8 Congress provided nine non-exclusive factors for a court to consider in order to determine bad faith under this section.9
The ACPA applies not only to protected marks, but also to protected personal names.10 The Cyberpiracy Protection for Individuals Act,11 which applies specifically to "any person who registers a domain name that consists of the name of another living person, or a name substantially and confusingly similar thereto, without that person’s consent, with the specific intent to profit from such name by selling the domain name. . ."12
Generally, the remedy for a trademark violation is injunctive. In the case of the ACPA, Congress allowed courts to order the cancellation or forfeiture of domain names that violate the trademark owner’s rights.13
III. "SUCKS.COM" CASES UNDER THE LANHAM ACTTo date, there have been two "sucks.com" cases decided under the Lanham Act. It is very unlikely that there will be any more.
In Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber,14 Bally brought a trademark infringement and dilution suit against Faber after Faber created and registered a website called www.compupix.com/ballysucks. This site, which no longer exists, was dedicated to complaints about Bally. The case was resolved before the ACPA was enacted.
The court immediately concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between Bally and Ballysucks.com because they are not "related goods" and dismissed the infringement claim.
Although the court dismissed the infringement claim, it still discussed how the case would come out under the most common likelihood of confusion test, found in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats.15 The court most likely did this because this was the first case of its kind and the court wanted to establish some official position on the matter.
The Sleekcraft test uses eight factors to determine whether a defendant’s use of a plaintiff’s trademark creates a likelihood of confusion. The factors are:
Strength of the markThe court found that Bally has strong marks, as evidenced by the amount of money spent on advertising and the fact that no other health club company uses the Bally mark. This factor came out in favor of Bally.The court found that the similarity of marks factor leaned in favor of Faber. Bally argued that the marks are identical or that adding "sucks" on the end of "Bally" is a minor change. The court found that "sucks" is such a loaded and negative word that the attachment of it to another word cannot be considered a minor change.
Proximity of the goods
Similarity of the marks
Evidence of confusion
Marketing channels used
Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
Defendant’s intent in selecting the mark
Likelihood of expansion of the product lines16
Bally asserted that the goods were in close proximity because both used the Internet and because it had a complaint section on its own website. The court found, however, that the sites did not compete, even though they were both on the Internet. This is because Bally’s is a commercial site while Faber’s site is for the purpose of consumer commentary. The factor leaned in favor of Faber.
Bally presented no evidence of actual confusion. Bally argued that the confusion would be patently obvious due to the similarity of the marks. The court, however, found that a reasonably prudent user would not mistake Faber’s site and the official Bally’s site. This factor leaned in favor of Faber.
Bally argued that the marketing channels used, namely the Internet, were identical. The court found that the overlap of marketing channels was irrelevant because Faber’s site was not a commercial use of the mark. This factor was neutral or slightly in favor of Faber.
Bally argues that an Internet user may accidentally access Faber’s site when searching for Bally’s site on the web. The court dismissed this because Faber does not actually use Bally’s trademark. It further points out that an Internet user searching with a search engine may want all the information available on Bally’s and is entitled to more than Bally’s own site. This factor leaned in favor of Faber.
The court found, and Bally agreed to some extent, that in the context of consumer commentary, Faber was entitled to use Bally’s mark. In fact, he had to use Bally’s mark in some way to identify what he was criticizing. This factor was neutral.
Bally conceded that there was no likelihood of the two parties expanding into each other’s lines of business. For this reason, the last factor leaned in favor of Faber.17
In concluding its discussion of likelihood of confusion, the court stated that "applying Bally’s argument would extend trademark protection to eclipse First Amendment rights. The courts, however, have rejected this approach by holding that trademark rights may be limited by First Amendment concerns."18
Under the dilution claim, Bally argued that there was dilution by tarnishment because Faber also had pornographic websites linked from the compupix.com site.
The court found that Faber had engaged in no commercial use of the Bally name due to the nature of the website. The court also concluded that there was no tarnishment. In so deciding, the court said that if tarnishment existed in this case, "it would be an impossible task to determine dilution on the Internet."19 The court went on to point out that to include "linked sites as grounds for finding commercial use or dilution would extend the statute far beyond its intended purpose of protecting trademark owners from use that have the effect of ‘lessening. . . the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services.’"20
For these reasons, the court ruled in favor of Faber.
In the other "sucks.com" Lanham Act, Lucent Technologies, Inc. v. Lucentsucks.com,21 the court did not get beyond the jurisdictional issues to reach the merits. However, the court acknowledged in dicta that had the case reached the merits, the court probably would have reached a decision similar the one reached in Bally.22
The remaining "sucks.com" cases have been decided under the UDRP.
IV. THE UNIFORM DOMAIN NAME DISPUTE RESOLUTION POLICYOn October 24, 1999, ICANN adopted its Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy.23 Since then, the UDRP has been used by domain name dispute resolution panels, most notably those associated with WIPO, to rule on domain name disputes. A number of these disputes have involved "sucks.com" websites.
Part of the registration process for a getting a domain name includes acceptance of the UDRP. A domain name owner can lose its rights to the domain name if it violates the UDRP.24
Section 4 of the UDRP explains the mandatory administrative proceeding that any domain name owner could be subject to. This proceeding occurs when a third party complainant asserts that the domain name owner has used a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to the complainant’s mark, that the domain name owner does not have rights or legitimate interests in the name, and that the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.25
The UDRP lists four non-exclusive factors to be considered in determining bad faith.26
The remedies sought in a UDRP proceedings are the cancellation of the domain name or the transfer of the domain name to the complainant owner of the mark.27
The UDRP proceeding does not prevent its loser from taking the case to court following the conclusion of the proceeding.28
V. "SUCKS.COM" CASES UNDER THE UDRPA number of "sucks.com" cases have been heard by panels using the UDRP’s mandatory administrative procedure. These hearings have come out strongly in the opposite direction from the court cases under the Lanham Act.
At one point, in fact, nine of the eleven "sucks.com" cases heard under the UDRP, had been decided in favor of the original mark owner, with the other two hearings awaiting decisions.29
A notable recent example of a UDRP hearing is Diageo plc v. John Zuccarini, Individually and t/a Cupcake Patrol.30 Diageo, formerly known as Guinness plc, the owner of the company and brewery that produces Guinness beer, brought this proceeding against Zuccarini after Zuccarini registered eleven domain names, all variations on the theme of "Guinness beer sucks."31
Previously, Diageo had brought a hearing against Zuccarini for his registration of guinnes.com. It claimed that Zuccarini’s registration of the eleven Guinness _____sucks.com sites were in direct retaliation for its having done this.32
In deciding on Zuccarini’s liability, the panel33 first looked at the question of whether the domain names were identical or confusingly similar to Diageo’s mark. Because the marks were not identical, the panel looked to whether they were confusingly similar. The panel decided that the domain names were confusingly similar.
In doing so, it relied on precedent from a previous hearing in which a panel held that "the confusingly similar test may be held to a different standard when used with Internet search engines."34
The panel also used the same Sleekcraft test for likelihood of confusion that the court used in Bally.35 However, the panel acknowledged that there were some difficulties in applying the test to a domain name dispute. Nevertheless, because neither party objected, the test was used.36
The panel found that Diageo had a very strong mark.
The panel found that although the parties were in different line of trade, the fact that there were beer references in a number of Zuccarini’s domain names was enough to establish some kind of proximity.
The panel found that because the word "guinness" appeared at the beginning of each of the domain names, there was at least some similarity between the marks.
There was no evidence of actual confusion. However, the panel found that it was unrealistic to require such evidence, especially because Zuccarini’s domain names had not actually been used for active websites.
When considering the marketing channels, the panel again pointed out the distinction between trademarks and domain names. It did accept, however, the assertion that a search using a search engine would likely point out the domain names in dispute.
The panel was unsure of how to interpret the question of the degree care exercised by the purchaser. Of particular concern was the fact that "sucks" is an American slang word and may not be familiar to all English speakers, let alone all Internet users. Because of this, the panel envisioned "circumstances where Internet users are not aware of the abusive connotations of the word and consequently associate the domain name with the owner of the trademark."37
The panel found that Zuccarini had no legitimate reason to select the marks to use for the domain name and that there was no evidence of any likelihood that either party would expand its product lines.
Based on its consideration of the UDRP standards and the Sleekcraft factors, the panel decided that Zuccarini had no legitimate interest in the Guinness name, and that his registering the "sucks.com" websites was primarily to disrupt Diageo’s business and was therefore done in bad faith.38
Based on its findings, the panel ordered that all eleven domain names be transferred to Diageo.39
While the panel did decide in favor of the Diageo, it did so at least in part because Zuccarini made no response to Diageo’s allegations, which the panel felt established prima facie cases for the elements needed under the UDRP.40
The Bally court focused in the end on the fact that First Amendment rights trump Trademark law. The panel in this case was more concerned by the fact that a test designed for trademark law was used in a decision also involving domain names, stating that "it is obvious that there remains many areas of doubt as to how the various elements of the test can be transposed in its application to disputes involving a comparison of domain names and trademarks."41 "
Source
http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/cls01/hamer3.html
Also Check Out
http://stateofnevadacase212-cv-02040-gmn-pal.blogspot.com/
Chill Free Speech, First Amendment Legal Threat, Free Speech Threat, Central District of California SLAPP Suit 2:12-cv-02484-GW-SH, MANWIN LICENSING INTERNATIONAL SARL V. NICHOLAS BULGIN. Domainers, Citizen Journalists, Bloggers, Whistleblowers: FIGHT BACK, Know your Rights.
Nicholas Bulgin; FIGHT BACK, Know your Rights.
Manwin, Counter Defendant in State of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PA is Going after Manwin Sucks Site. Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox Alleges, this is in Criminal and Civil Conspiracy with Co-Conspirators and Counter Defendants of District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL.
Manwin, Counter Defendant in State of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PA is Going after Manwin Sucks Site. Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox Alleges, this is in Criminal and Civil Conspiracy with Co-Conspirators and Counter Defendants of District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL.
Below is Research Tips for ALL Victims of SLAPP Suits, Free Speech Legal Threats, First Amendment Legal Threats, Intellectual Property Legal Threats
Central California 2:12-cv-02484-GW-SH
NOTE: First Amendment Rights TRUMP Trademark Laws
"Manwin Seeks $400K, Domain Transfers in Trademark Suit"
"LOS ANGELES — Manwin has filed court papers spelling out what the adult entertainment conglomerate is seeking in its suit against Nicholas Bulgin.
The company is demanding $400,000 in damages from Bulgin, described in court papers as a "professional cybersquatter," for violating its trademarks — the statutory maximum for four websites Bulgin allegedly registered (Manwin.net, Manwin.co, Brazzer.us and ManwinSucks.com).Manwin, in its motion for a default judgment, also is asking for approval to transfer the domains at the heart of the suit. Currently, the company does not own Manwin.net, Manwin.co, Brazzer.us and ManwinSucks.com.
The requests to the court, which is slated to hear Manwin's default motion on Feb. 21, go further.
Manwin wants a permanent injunction requiring Bulgin to cease registering more Manwin variant websites, as well as Twitter accounts or blogs, and cease from disseminating statements falsely accusing Manwin reps or even its managing partner, Fabian Thylmann. It also seeks $11,600 in attorneys fees."Source and Full Article
http://www.xbiz.com/news/158810
hey have you seen the TaubmanSucks.com Case?
http://taubmansucks.com/
This is the Exact Same Case Merits. They are using Trademark as the New Way to Suppress Free Speech, and you know who is behind it all. The Co-Conspirators and Counter Defendants of State of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL. Can you Say RICO?
These Guys are in Criminal and Civil Conspiracy. You have a Free Speech Right to Parody them, to have a Sucks Sites.
Research Links
"Trademark use in a fictional work to describe or identify products or services. Some examples would be, "shopping for books at Walmart", "playing a Playstation game", and "wearing Oakley sunglasses." Trademark law allows an author of a non-fiction work to use trademarks in a way that is critical of the owner's products or services such as "rolling over in my Ford". In this situation, the author uses the trademark to describe Ford's vehicles and is careful not to confuse the reader as to the owner of the trademark. Ford has yet to file a trademark infringement lawsuit against the individual. Another website, fordreallysucks.com is a website that Ford heavily targeted to get removed from the Internet and as with many other corporations, FAILED MISERABLY to get it removed. Ford has seemingly given up on it, maybe they are finally more focused about their failing dynasty.
The above-referenced situations are considered non-confusing and "nominative use" based on the following requirements:
the owner's product and service cannot be easily identifiable without the use trademark
the author uses as little of the trademark as possible to identify the trademark owner's products or services the author does nothing that suggests to the reader sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner."
Source
http://www.trademark-education.com/fairuse.html
Research ALL Documents in the GlenBeckRapedAndMurderedaYoungGirlin1990.com,
as to Parody, Satire, Trademark.
http://www.citmedialaw.org/threats/beck-v-eiland-hall
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beck_v._Eiland-Hall
http://www.docstoc.com/docs/128343966/Marc-J-Randazza-Responds-to-Glen-Beck-WIPO
http://regator.com/p/219976043/randazza_strikes_again_glenn_beck_is_the_butt/
http://domainnamewire.com/2009/11/06/after-winning-case-man-hands-domain-name-to-glenn-beck/
Research the Goldman Sachs V. Mike Morgan Case
http://www.goldmansachs666.com/2009/04/goldman-sachs-v-mike-morgan.html
A Bit on the Trademark and Domain Names
"Sprint Nextel is run by Dan Hesse. Sprint gouged Allen Harkleroad's company for tens of thousands of dollars for dedicated Internet connectivity. Sprint refused to rectify the situation and ignored Mr. Harkleroad's attempts to settle the matter. Sprint-Really-Sucks.com was started to give people a place to vent their frustration with Sprint. Sprint has not filed a SLAPP against Harkleroad, because they know they would be wasting the money they ripped Harkleroad off for. Allan's redesign of the Sprint logo with the transparent word of SUCKS on top of it was absolutely brilliant and fully protected under trademark law. He could have gone one step further by adding a rubber stamp just above the 'sucks' to show his seal of approval.
Sprint also has been harshly criticized on a website that is looking for authorized dealers to bring a class action lawsuit against Nextel."
Source
http://www.trademark-education.com/fairuse.html
http://www.farmersinsurancegroupsucks.com/ourstory.htm
"Sucks.com: An Example of the Difficulties in Applying Trademark Law to Domain Name Disputes"
http://www.uiowa.edu/~cyberlaw/cls01/hamer3.html
Also Nicholas Bulgin, and BULLIED Defendants such as Nicholas Bulgin, Note This:
Your First Amendment Rights MUST Be Adjudicated Before they Can Seize a Domain Name or your Content.
"If a court issues an injunction prior to adjudicating the First Amendment Protection of the speech at issue, the injunction cannot pass constitutional muster."
If your Domain Names, Sites are SEIZED before the First Amendment is Adjudicated or Considered a Factor in the case and thereby "expressly skipping the essential step of adjudicating the First Amendment protections to the speech at issue.", then this is a violation of law and constitutional rights. FIGHT BACK.
Manwin is a Public Figure. (New York Times Vs. Sullivan). You have a right to a Gripe Site, Parody Site, Review Site, Sucks Site, Satire Blog / Site.
A Judicial Order that prevents free speech from occurring is unlawful. ( Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law; Principles and Policies 918 (2002) ( “The Clearest definition of prior restraint is.. a judicial order that prevents speech from occurring:).
Prior Restraints are “the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment Rights.” Neb. Press Ass’n v. Stewart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976). There is a “deep-seated American hostility to prior restraint” Id at 589 (Brennan, J. concurring).
Injunctive relief to prevent actual or threatened damage is heavily disfavored because it interferes with the First Amendment and amounts to censorship prior to a judicial determination of the lawlessness of speech. See Moore v. City Dry Cleaners & Laundry, 41 So. 2d 865, 872 (Fla. 1949). “The special vice of prior restraint,” the Supreme Court held, “is that communication will be suppressed... before an adequate determination that it is unprotected by the First Amendment”. Pittsburgh Press Co v. Pittsburg Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 390 (1973). Also se Fort Wayn Books Inc. v Indiana, 489 U.S. 46, 66 (1989); M.I.C., Ltd v Bedford Township, 463 U.S. 1341, 11343 (1983.)
Also see Post-Newswek Stations Orlando, Inc. v. Guetzlo.
“RKA sought extraordinary relief in the form of prior restraint to enjoin .. . This relief is not recognized in this State, nor anywhere else in the Country. In addition to ignoring the First Amendment Rights and almost a century’s worth of common law, the .. court ignored virtually all procedural requirements for the issue of a preliminary injunction.” Page 5 Paragraph ii of Opening Brief Appellate Case No. 3D12-3189, Irina Chevaldina Appellant vs. R.K./FI Management Inc.;et.al., Appellees. Attorney for Appellant Marc J. Randazza Florida Bar No. 325566, Randazza Legal Group Miami Florida. "
Research Fraud on the Courts, Judicial Cannons and ...
Officers of the court include: Lawyers, Judges, Referees, and those appointed; Guardian Ad Litem, Parenting Time Expeditors, Mediators, Rule 114 Neutrals, Evaluators, Administrators, special appointees, and any others whose influence are part of the judicial mechanism.
"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication". Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23
In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function ‐‐‐ thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding? “Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court."
First Amendment Rights
TRUMP Trademark Laws
Also NoteThe Information Below from Court Documents and Filings of District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL - Chill Speech Case,
http://stateofnevadacase212-cv-02040-gmn-pal.blogspot.com/
Reader: The Registrar in my Case is Godaddy, So Your Case May Be Different
" MarcRandazza.me was one of these Domain Names SEIZED by Plaintiff / Counter Defendant Marc Randazza with no Due Process to Pro Se Defendant / Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox and Defendant Eliot Bernstein and no First Amendment Adjudication.
MarcRandazza.me was purchased by Pro Se Defendant / Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox as a Parody, making fun of Plaintiff / Counter Defendant Marc Randazza. MarcRandazza.me was never a blog, MarcRandazza.me has made ad revenue by Godaddy yet in a fraud on the court RRR claims that Pro Se Defendant / Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox made the ad revenue. This domain name was SEIZED, Stolen.
MarcRandazza.me and the “taboo” domain were both parked at Godaddy and never had blogs. Godaddy Inc., Bob Parsons had ads on the parked pages yet Plaintiff / Counter Defendant Marc Randazza claims that Pro Se Defendant / Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox did, knowing full well that Crystal Cox was not the one receiving ad dollars. Plaintiff / Counter Defendant Marc Randazza, with actual malice committed fraud on the court and lied regarding Pro Se Defendant / Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox and domain names at Godaddy.
Godaddy Inc., Bob Parsons has Pattern and History in freely placing ads on Trademarked Parked Domain Names Godaddy Inc., Bob Parsons are IMMUNE from Legal Action and are able to make ad revenue hand over fist on trade names, trademarked names in a domain name, yet Godaddy Clients, Customers and Domainers are SUED by Attorneys such as Plaintiff / Counter Defendant Marc Randazza.
When a company, say, for example Walmart of Ford, or an Association Say, such as “Realtor” issue a cease and desist or sue a Godaddy Clients, Customers and Domainers for Trademark Infringement, they are satisfied as long as the Godaddy Clients, Customers and Domainers moves the Domain Name to a parked page, vs a blog. They deem the blog or website as stealing their traffic and redirecting their business, however, these companies such as Ford, Walmart, Realtors, as in the example, have no issue with Godaddy Inc., Bob Parsons making that ad dollar revenue of their good name, their trademarked name. This is unlawful, hypocritical, discriminating, unconstitutional and a violation of the legal rights of the Godaddy Clients, Customers and Domainers.
Pro Se Defendant / Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox and business partner have been Godaddy Customers since 2005, for years having over 5000 domain names. We have executive account manager, received gifts from Godaddy and constant calls. YET, when an unlawful, bully, hypocritical attorney such as Plaintiff / Counter Defendant Marc Randazza sues someone like us, a valuable Godaddy Client, Godaddy Inc., Bob Parsons not only sticks up for the attorney, Godaddy Inc., Bob Parsons breaks the laws and UDRP rules in changing servers and violating rights, conspiring with that attorney and against their own clients.
Godaddy sends emails trying to get you to buy domains, yes even trademarked names and names of OTHER PEOPLE. Godaddy gets ad dollars from parked domains even when a domainer is renew them, why? Because Godaddy is “Allowed” to make ad dollar money from PARKED, Trademarked Domain Names but Domainers are NOT.
Godaddy Inc., Bob Parson has been at this racketeering game for Years. Pro Se Defendant / Pro Se Counter Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox will soon be naming Godaddy, Bob Parson, WIPO, Peter L. Michaelson, along with Plaintiff / Counter Defendant Marc Randazza and other co-conspirators and counter defendants in a Federal RICO Complaint, a Criminal Complaint to the Attorney General and reporting to all authorities the activities of Godaddy, Bob Parson, WIPO, Peter L. Michaelson, along with Plaintiff / Counter Defendant Marc Randazza and other co-conspirators and counter defendants.
Godaddy Inc., Bob Parson woos their clients at trade shows, sends them special gifts, emails offer non stop. And the biggest Godaddy Clients such as Investigative Blogger Defendant Crystal Cox, when our Domain Names are STOLEN, Godaddy conspires with the Intellectual Property Thieves and violates the rights of long term Godaddy Clients.
Godaddy Inc. lets' buyers spend money on Trademarked Domain Names, and Godaddy Inc. Gives no refund. When Companies such as WALMART and Association such as REALTOR, send a Domainer a cease and desist, they are satisfied if the name is PARKED. Thing is the Domainer PAID for the Domain Names, renewed the Domain Name, Got the Domain Name found in the Search Engines and Godaddy GOT the Revenue from the PARKED Domain Names.
The Courts, WIPO, ICANN, they all side with the Trademark Owner, and AGAINST the Smart, Internet Savvy Domainer. So the Domainer pays for the Domain Name, Gets the Domain Name in the Search, then pays to litigated the loss of the Domain Name and GODADDY gets all the MONEY with NO Liability, EVEN though GODADDY is the One Selling Trademarked Domain Names. Godaddy Auctions Sell Trademarked Names, Domain Name Leasing Sites Lease Trademarked Names and godaddy makes ad Dollars from the ads on the domain names, even the Trademarked ONES."
The Registrar Makes Money, Why Can't The End User?
First Amendment Rights
TRUMP Trademark Laws
Also Check Out this Nevada SLAPP Suit to Chill Free Speech
District of Nevada Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Chill Speech Threat
Posted Here by
Investigative Blogger Pro Se Defendant / Pro Se Counter Plaintiff
Crystal L. Cox
Upon Knowledge and Belief
Nicholas Bulgin; FIGHT BACK, Know your Rights. Manwin, Counter Defendant in State of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PA is Going after Manwin Sucks Site, this is in Criminal and Civil Conspiracy, RICO. 2:12-cv-02484-GW-SH
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
District of Nevada Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL
Court Documents and Filings of District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL - Chill Speech Case
District of Nevada Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Chill Speech Threat
District of Nevada Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL Chill Speech Threat
For More on District of Nevada Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL; this Nevada Slapp Suit, Nevada Shield Law Challenge, Free Speech Threat, Chill Speech Threat, First Amendment Threat, Intellectual Property Fraud, SLAPP Lawsuit, Violation of Due Process, Violation of Constitutional Rights, WIPO Fraud Alleged, Godaddy Inc. Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, Tonkon Torp Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, Obsidian Finance Group Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, Peter L. Michaelson Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, Liberty Media Holdings Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, Philly Law Blog Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, NPR Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, Forbes Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, Kashmir Hill Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, New York Times Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, David Carr Reporter Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, APPLE Executives Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, Intel Corp. Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, Nevada Courts Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, Free Speech Coalition Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, Diana Duke Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, Kenneth P. White Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, Brown White and Newhouse Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, J. Malcom Devoy Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, Greenberg Traurig Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged, Ronald D. Green Civil and Criminal Conspiracy Alleged and many others,District of Nevada Case Number 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)