Domain King loses UDRP, accused of filing "misleading affidavit"

[DaddyHalbucks]

voyuer.com - UDRP

Rick Schwartz "Domain King" V. Slavik Viner "Xedoc"

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/433802.htm

Complainant is Virtual Dates, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Howard
Neu of Law Office of Howard Neu, P.A., 1152 North University Drive, Pembroke
Pines, FL 33024.
[...]
Complainant’s additional submission consists of an Affidavit of Richard
Schwartz...
[...]
The Panel is most disturbed by Complainant’s additional submission. The
Schwartz declaration is unsupported by any evidence. The Schwartz
Declaration contradicts the very trademark application on which Complainant
basis its request for relief.
[...]
Complainant mischaracterizes the decision in The Cold War Museum v. Nicolas
Jampol, FA96594 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 8, 2001).
[...]
Schwartz’ misleading affidavit...
[...]
Complainant has not established all three elements required under the ICANN
Policy; the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

[stuff]

voyuer.com - was it $112 000 in snap some time ago?
--a yes, say it already.

[GeorgeK]

I told Domain King his TM registrations were worthless, years ago. I'm glad to see Slavik agrees, as does the panel.

[Fearless]

Damn reverse domain name hijackers. When will the slimeballs wanting something for nothing quit? Serves the greedy bastard right.

[DaddyHalbucks]

There is a silver lining to all this though.

The silver lining is: the T.R.A.F.F.I.C. trade shows will only be attended by "persons of good reputation."

LOL.

[GeorgeK]

That makes 3 UDRP losses, 2 as a Respondent:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2001-1032.html (RacingForm.com)

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2001-0213.html (adtsucks.com)

as discussed at http://www.dnforum.com/f78/exaggeration-dont-believe-everything-you-read-thread-69843.html

[Fearless]

Was this going to be in Rick's mentoring get rich quick program? Lead by example.

[DaddyHalbucks]

Originally Posted by Gregr

Was this going to be in Rick's mentoring get rich quick program? Lead by example.

Perhaps it is supposed to relate to upcoming promised discussion about domain theft at T.R.A.F.F.I.C. West.

Is Schwartz saying:

A. Don't do as I do, do as I say?

B. Or, maybe that: theft by outright forgery is wrong, but theft by bogus trademark claim is OK?

Circle the best answer, kiddies.

[GeorgeK]

The timing of this defeat, in the same week that GoDaddy became the #1 registrar, is perhaps a sign.

http://blog.lextext.com/blog/_archiv...26/623227.html

One loss....can happen to anyone. Two losses -- perhaps a bad streak. But three losses, perhaps it demonstrates the Truth.

As Bret so aptly wrote "The King is Dead".

[izopod]

Originally Posted by GeorgeK

The timing of this defeat, in the same week that GoDaddy became the #1 registrar, is perhaps a sign.

http://blog.lextext.com/blog/_archiv...26/623227.html

One loss....can happen to anyone. Two losses -- perhaps a bad streak. But three losses, perhaps it demonstrates the Truth.

As Bret so aptly wrote "The King is Dead".

These "Rick Schwartz Gang Bang" threads are so boring...(and predictable)

How can you equate Godaddy overtaking Netsol for the top registrar with Schwartz losing a few URDP cases? Do you really think this is some sign? I realize you are using a little hyperbole, but come on. I really think your choice of visuals says more about you then it does Schwartz.

Let me be clear. I don't know Rick Schwartz personally. All I can say is that the biggest "losers" tend to be the biggest "winners". If all you ever do is "play" it safe in life, you'll most likely end up on the short end of a government career in a cubicle somewhere. If however you take calculated risks, more often then not, my research says you'll come out ahead every time. Most likely you won't have to take that Walmart greeter job when it comes time to retire from your "regular" job to make ends meet.

And yeah, risk takers tend to lose a few. It's the nature of the game. For every loss, I'm sure even those that have piled on here (which is beneath most of you) can admit to even more successes that Rick has had.

...in otherwords, blow it out your arses!

[DaddyHalbucks]

Originally Posted by izopod

Let me be clear. I don't know Rick Schwartz personally. All I can say is that the biggest "losers" tend to be the biggest "winners". If all you ever do is "play" it safe in life, you'll most likely end up on the short end of a government career in some cubicle. If however you take calculated risks, more often then not, my research says you'll come out ahead every time. Most likely you won't have to take that Walmart greeter job when it comes time to retire from your "regular" job to make ends meet.

And yeah, risk takers tend to lose a few. It's the nature of the game. For everyone loss, I'm sure even those that have piled on here (which is beneath most of you) can admit to even more successes that Rick has had.

...in otherwords, blow it out your arses!

CHA CHING!

Your application for Rick's board is now approved.

Please enter on your knees.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by izopod

Let me be clear. I don't know Rick Schwartz personally. All I can say is that the biggest "losers" tend to be the biggest "winners". If all you ever do is "play" it safe in life, you'll most likely end up on the short end of a government career in a cubicle somewhere. If however you take calculated risks, more often then not, my research says you'll come out ahead every time. Most likely you won't have to take that Walmart greeter job when it comes time to retire from your "regular" job to make ends meet.

And yeah, risk takers tend to lose a few. It's the nature of the game. For every loss, I'm sure even those that have piled on here (which is beneath most of you) can admit to even more successes that Rick has had.

...in otherwords, blow it out your arses!

Wait.. so is Schwartz a risk taker or a scumbag? Because if I'm not mistaken, he's using sleazy ways to steal domain names from other people. Please correct me if I'm a wrong, but that's the impression I got from what I read.

Your "risk takers will prevail" logic being used in application to Schwartz is stupid. I mean, the same logic could be applied to criminals - and are we supposed to admire them? "Well, he tried hard, but he got caught by the cops. But I bet next time he'll get away and make out big time with someone's property."

[izopod]

Originally Posted by DaddyHalbucks

CHA CHING!

Your application for Rick's board is now approved.

Please enter on your knees.

Nope... Don't think so. From what I've read here you have to request it via email. I have no intentions of doing so.

[Fearless]

Izopod I don't care if it were the new Pope that tried to reverse hijack a domain name, he'd be subject to the same "gang bang". I abhor reverse domain name hijackers no matter who they are. The fact it's someone that a lot of people worship makes it more interesting.

[GeorgeK]

Go read www.domaindevelopers.com and see the hypocrisy.

The agenda includes intimidating small businesses and individuals into surrendering domains under threat of legal action. Domains they have NO LEGAL OR MORAL RIGHTS TO!! This legal action is based upon fear -- it costs upwards of $100,000 to defend a suit like this and a minimum of $3,000 to defend in WIPO. Any domain owner is a potential target.


Corporate America is hijacking the life long dream from moms and dads and brothers and sisters!

It is called "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking". We are here to EXPOSE these folks for who they are.

MANY OF AMERICA'S MOST RESPECTED COMPANIES ARE ENGAGED IN THIS DISGUSTING ACTIVITY! This is nothing more than corporate bullying at it's worst!! It MUST stop!!!

[Fearless]

Originally Posted by GeorgeK

Go read www.domaindevelopers.com and see the hypocrisy.

The agenda includes intimidating small businesses and individuals into surrendering domains under threat of legal action. Domains they have NO LEGAL OR MORAL RIGHTS TO!! This legal action is based upon fear -- it costs upwards of $100,000 to defend a suit like this and a minimum of $3,000 to defend in WIPO. Any domain owner is a potential target.


Corporate America is hijacking the life long dream from moms and dads and brothers and sisters!

It is called "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking". We are here to EXPOSE these folks for who they are.

MANY OF AMERICA'S MOST RESPECTED COMPANIES ARE ENGAGED IN THIS DISGUSTING ACTIVITY! This is nothing more than corporate bullying at it's worst!! It MUST stop!!!

For clarity George:

Domain Name: DOMAINDEVELOPERS.COM

Registrant:
Action Advertising Products Inc
Box 4357
Boynton Beach
FL
US
33424

Administrative Contact:
Schwartz, R (NIC-2209)
Action Advertising Products Inc.
Box 4357
Boynton Beach
FL, US
33424

[izopod]

Originally Posted by Jonathan

Wait.. so is Schwartz a risk taker or a scumbag? Because if I'm not mistaken, he's using sleazy ways to steal domain names from other people. Please correct me if I'm a wrong, but that's the impression I got from what I read.

Your "risk takers will prevail" logic being used in application to Schwartz is stupid. I mean, the same logic could be applied to criminals - and are we supposed to admire them? "Well, he tried hard, but he got caught by the cops. But I bet next time he'll get away and make out big time with someone's property."

My thoughts:

1. I don't think the TM'ing of generic words is a good thing. However the US and other countries have allowed people to register their dot com names for protection. So, whaddya do? I personally would register your name, even if it's a generic word.

2. Rick Schwartz has the right to defend his name, Voyeur.com. Btw: You don't need a registered TM to be considered trademarked. If you slap, TM on it and use the name in commerce it can afford you "some" protections, although not a whole lot if someone decides to start using your name.

3. Rick Schwartz is acting as a business entity as I see it in this case. Business people, successful ones, don't think in terms of "how the other people feel", or rather.... "gee, I wonder if the owners of Voyuer.com, understand how I feel about them getting my traffic. Trust me, business owners do not care about those operators (in a business sense) who pop up around them. If you owned, DomainOwner.com, and someone caught DomainOwners.com on a backorder, would you REALLY care about their business success or failure? Be honest here...it's important to the dicussion

4. The URDP panel made the right decision, however the fact that Rick Schwartz went after the owners proves my point #3 above. He is acting as a business entity. It doesn't make him a "scumbag". Those are personal words, and even fighting words in some circles. The owners of innocent sounding domain names who point them at porn sites are "scum bags". People who defend a business interest are simply following time-honored business decisions: Defend your area at all costs, or be minimalized. It's no different on the internet. You could even go as far to say that you are dumb if you don't file a URDP case on someone who has a similiar sounding domain as yours, AND you are fighting for the same customers.

5. I like to debate the issues. I have no allegiance to anyone here. When I see "Gang Bang" threads, I tend to make it a point to prove the others wrong based on the shear fact their arguments are rooted in personal themes/agendas rather then fact.

[GeorgeK]

Go re-read www.domaindevelopers.com, izopod. Straight from the "King's" mouth.

[izopod]

Originally Posted by GeorgeK

Go re-read www.domaindevelopers.com, izopod. Straight from the "King's" mouth.

Why don't you just say it George instead of "hiding and ducking" here. You think Rick Schwartz is a hypocrite, given the fact the domaindevelopers.com site seems to lash out against corporations who "steal" names from rightful domain owners.

If anyone here can honestly say they've never been a hypocrite, then I personally would like to shake their hands.

If I didn't know better I would say that he actually wanted to lose the URDP case. Would this not set case law which in turn would actually help domainers with similiar sounding domain names. I don't think so (see my point#3 above)... the thought is intriguing nonetheless.

In the end, business people tend to operate on both sides of the fence. Many corporations give to both Republicans and Democrats just to make sure at the end of the day they will be able to operate in a enviable position.