Exposed

**typist** · 02-11-2008, 04:14 AM

this one made me smile today:

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Ain-Jeem, Inc. v. Barto Enterprises, Inc.

Case No. D2007-1841

1. The Parties

Complainant is Ain-Jeem, Inc., Long Beach, California, United States of America, represented by Ivan Hoffman, Attorney at Law, United States of America.

Respondent is Barto Enterprises, Inc., Columbia, Maryland, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <kareemabduljabbar.com> is registered with eNom.

...

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <kareemabduljabbar.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2007-1841.html

whois -h whois.enom.com dnquest.com ...

Registration Service Provided By: Barto Enterprises, Inc.
Domain name: dnquest.com
Registrant Contact: BartoEnterprises,Inc.

Just to clarify, while I haven't read this particular decision, my sympathies are often with the losing respondent. The title of this post is a cheap punchline to attract attention...

I offer my sincere condolences

**denny007** · 02-11-2008, 05:15 AM

Is this the same nutcase who claims he can trace any email delivery to any personal computer ?

**typist** · 02-11-2008, 05:24 AM

Originally Posted by denny007

Is this the same nutcase who claims he can trace any email delivery to any personal computer ?

the answer to your question (blunt as always

): yes, it's the same person.

**Banned: domain newbie** · 02-11-2008, 05:46 AM

i think dnquest.com is memba here - i remember this name from before??

**stuff** · 02-11-2008, 05:53 AM

another idiot noted
so caleld Stuff`s "hall off fame"

**Banned: domain newbie** · 02-11-2008, 06:09 AM

Originally Posted by stuff

another idiot noted
so caleld Stuff`s "hall off fame"

what are you about here - hav i missed something ?

**typist** · 02-11-2008, 06:13 AM

I just skimmed the decision - the panelist must have been smoking crack:

At some point the site included, as either a hyperlink or Internet address, the following: “www.vegasgamblers.com/kaj.” Respondent owns and operates a commercial website at <www.vegasgamblers.com>.

I doubt our friend dnquest owns a domain like vegasgamblers.com - more likely it's vegasgamblers.info

**denny007** · 02-11-2008, 10:21 AM

Bump for its significance

**Ovicide** · 02-11-2008, 11:33 AM

Now this is funny.

He's been scolding cybersquatters here for years and pointing to their wicked ways.

Oh, Oh... The Complainant Sez:

The use to which Respondent has put the website is not legitimate or bona fide under the Policy, as it includes a connection to gambling, an activity not only unrelated to Mr. Abdul-Jabbar but also anathema to his Muslim faith. As such Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name has tarnished Complainant’s trademarks.

Could this be grounds for further legal action?

**stuff** · 02-11-2008, 11:38 AM

Originally Posted by domain newbie

what are you about here - hav i missed something ?

Originally Posted by Ovicide

Now this is funny.

He's been scolding cybersquatters here for years and pointing to their wicked ways.

thats why

**Seraphim** · 02-11-2008, 11:45 AM

So I guess it is true about cyberphobia.

**Dave Zan** · 02-11-2008, 07:10 PM

Usage, usage, usage...sheesh...

**denny007** · 02-11-2008, 09:40 PM

Could this be grounds for further legal action?

Or fatva ? (Salman Rushdie, Danish cartoons etc.)

**dolansco** · 02-12-2008, 04:43 PM

Originally Posted by denny007

Bump for its significance

indeed

**denny007** · 02-12-2008, 11:31 PM

So still no feedback from our new typosquatting colleague DNQUEST ?

**typist** · 02-13-2008, 12:04 AM

Originally Posted by denny007

So still no feedback from our new typosquatting colleague DNQUEST ?

here's what he would say - actually what he did say ( http://www.dnforum.com/f34/domains-c...ad-192375.html ):

Teh best advice is you will ever get is this...

Go to the legal section, use the search bar and type in "trademark" and "tm", spend about a week ready everything. You will save time, moeny, hassles and headaches.

As far as potentional penalties:

Loss of the domain
Loss of all monies gained from the domain
Loss earnings of the TM holder
Punitive damages
Your legal fees
Thier legal fees
$100,000.00 for violation of the Lanham Act
Labeled forever as a cybersquatter (which could affect future disputes)

So he lost the domain, and he's labeled forever as a cybersquatter now. Hell, they may continue to go after him, and there's a risk he'll have to pay punitive damages, legal fees, statutory damages (Lanham)...

Maybe he's just staying in bed all day long now - too many hassles and headaches?

**denny007** · 02-13-2008, 12:18 AM

Maybe he's just staying in bed all day long now - too many hassles and headaches?

Or depressed/suicidal, because his life is finished - I mean to be Labeled forever as a cybersquatter - that's bad, no ?

**typist** · 02-13-2008, 12:26 AM

Originally Posted by denny007

Or depressed/suicidal, because his life is finished - I mean to be Labeled forever as a cybersquatter - that's bad, no ?

very bad.

**GT Web** · 02-13-2008, 12:55 AM

As much as DNQuest annoys me...the name wasn't actually THAT bad, if he had created a fan site instead of forwarding it to his casino domain, he probably would have won the case.

Still pretty ironic though...