Good Decision <sueschefftruth.com>

[marcorandazza]

The complainant tried to squelch a criticism site by (laughably) claiming trademark rights in her name and infringement by criticism.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2008-1177.html

Yet again, the Florida Bar disappoints me.

[IAmAllanShore]

I'm not involved in that panel decision in any way, but I do wish that the Respondent had been of the quality that we could have held him up to be blameless, rather than "shifty," which is how he ended up appearing.

While the merits of the complaint itself may have been lacking, I don't doubt the motivation was genuine if the typical behavior for the Respondent is similar to that which seems to have been displayed in the response.

The Domain Name, <sueshefftruth.com>, was registered on August 7, 2007 in the name of the Respondent, “Psyborgue”

The registrant’s address was given as an apartment on Rue Rennequin in “Slippery Rock, PA”, but with a postal code in France, not Pennsylvania. Michael Crawford was shown as the administrative and technical contact, at the same address. There is no evidence in the record indicating that “Psyborgue” is a natural or legal person.

...

Mr. Crawford is currently “on vacation in France.”

A disclaimer at the head of the website advises, “This site is not endorsed by or affiliated with Sue Scheff™”.

...

According to the Complaint, the Respondent’s website links to an Amazon Associates Store selling products unrelated to the website, and the website also provides a “donation” shopping cart.

Plenty of dirt to throw around, but I find it hard to cheer a victory in this case.

-Allan

[marcorandazza]

True, the Respondent did mask his identity and location. However, the right to free speech includes the right to speak anonymously.

This case was a clear example of a law firm trying to stifle criticism of its client by mis-using the UDRP. From a free speech perspective, there is a lot to cheer here.

[Psyborgue]

I'm not involved in that panel decision in any way, but I do wish that the Respondent had been of the quality that we could have held him up to be blameless, rather than "shifty," which is how he ended up appearing.

Respondant here.

Actually, I did try to change the address in the registrar's config, but every time I tried to change the city, it threw up an error. The complanant tried to make this sound sinister in their complaint. I wasn't trying to be shifty at all. On first receiving the complaint (even before the physical copy, which was already mailed to the correct adress in paris), one of the first things I did was email all the parties with a correct address (normally I live in the states but am on vacation in Paris after just graduating college).

If you're interested, the full complaint as well as all the responses can be downloaded here:
http://fornits.com/psy/sst/