Pedro The Midget Scores

[jberryhill]

What did the Pink Panther say when he stepped on an ant?

"Dead ant, dead ant, dead ant....."

That one doesn't work well in text

http://domains.adrforum.com/domains/...ns/1253155.htm
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <ant.com>, which is registered with eNom, Inc. (“eNom”).

[TheLegendaryJP]

Good show John

Respondent made the following statements:

· Respondent admitted that the domain name ant.com was being held unused

· Respondent admitted that he had thousands of other domain names

· Respondent admitted that the domain name was being held to sell for millions of dollars

· Respondent admitted that the website was “worthless,” but that he was looking for the “jackpot” if he could hook a “big fish”

Interesting if true...



What I find more interesting is the change in whois in july of 2008 to HK lmao

This Stephane Pacaud is a member here, I assume this is the french person the complaint speaks of and current owner, no ?

They had all those NN .com's etc. Wonder if everything went to HK or just this name?

[Gerry]

What a comedy!

how Complainant could apparently have been using, in 1996, a domain name which was not registered until 1997, and when it itself did not exist until1997.

have been attempting to acquire the domain name since 2006, and suggests that, since it was apparently unable to obtain the domain name at that time, Complainant then proceeded to obtain registration of the trademark ANT in the United States in 2008.

Seriously, this is one of the most plainly stated and argued decisions I have read in a very long time.

It is an excellent study of the entire process and covers point by point the complete process.

My congrats to you for a successful defense and congrats to whomever dictated and composed this brief.

[TheLegendaryJP]

It's clear they have a nice portfolio but with many past wipo losses I was suprised the complaintants lawyers didnt bother to do any backround, or maybe ant.com in HK doesnt lead to Stephane Pacaud and past wipo's. Seems to me you have no real legal match in cases like this John

Steph must have felt this coming from a mile away.

[jberryhill]

Interesting if true...

Those were statements made by the Complainant about an alleged telephone conversation which (a) was not held with the Respondent/registrant, and (b) does not appear to have been possible.

You are quoting from the Complainant's allegations. Among other things, the Complainant alleged it was a parking site. You can go to Mozilla.org and readily determine that the video downloader tool has been available since July 2008:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/8174

This wasn't a "domainer" case - it was an end-user case.

[INFORG]

I thought you made a clear case for reverse hijacking - they should have found that was the case.

[jberryhill]

Steph must have felt this coming from a mile away.

How? The trademark applications weren't even filed when the domain name was sold in 2006.

This was the same attorney who tried to buy shoppers.com at auction, and then filed a UDRP when his client didn't win the auction. I don't for a minute believe he was ignorant of the facts. He's not that stupid.

[Gerry]

How? The trademark applications weren't even filed when the domain name was sold in 2006.

This was the same attorney who tried to buy shoppers.com at auction, and then filed a UDRP when his client didn't win the auction. I don't for a minute believe he was ignorant of the facts. He's not that stupid.

So, the attorney (supposition here), represented his client (and charged his client)

a fee to represent and bid in an auction
charged the client fees for filing trademarks
and charged for represention before the panel

incredible.

If all that is true, then the attorney knowingly filed for TM's after the fact but somehow convinced the claimant that they had a case? Believing that no one would catch on to the dates of usage, registration, filing, etc?

I am not bashing attorneys but bashing the gullible client for buying the whole shabang.

[jberryhill]

What I find more interesting is the change in whois in july of 2008 to HK lmao

Ummmm... JP.... You'll note the Respondent is Ant.com Ltd.

http://mashable.com/2008/11/18/firefox-youtube-plugins/

20+ Firefox Plugins to Enhance Your YouTube Experience

Notice the first one listed in the article:

Ant Toolbar - The official toolbar for Ant.com includes a YouTube video downloader as well as a built in FLV player so you can play the videos you’ve snagged right from there.

Are you suggesting this is some sort of elaborate dodge?

This Stephane Pacaud is a member here, I assume this is the french person the complaint speaks of and current owner, no ?

No. They made an impossible to claim to have spoken to a prior owner of the domain name, but that person is not the current owner of the domain name, and hasn't been for quite some time.

The Complainant was perfectly aware the domain name had sold for a high price, so they filed two trademark applications when they couldn't get the domain name, and then concocted a phony complaint blaming the current owner Ant.com Ltd. for anything that had been done with the domain name since 1998.

It's not some kind of a "tactic" for a group of developers to obtain a domain name, name a company after it, launch a product, have it distributed by mozilla.org with more than a million users, and obtain favorable independent reviews.

I mean, let's get real here. If that is some kind of "cybersquatting camoflauge" then we can take down the internet right now, since everyone on it must be engaging in some kind of phony baloney.

[BidNo]

Congratulations John! You were exceptional -- they look like the proverbial "one legged man in an ass-kicking contest".

I was ROTHFLMAF over several points but one of my favorite turns was:

The facts are that Respondent has obtained a valuable domain name, consisting of a rare three letter word, which it has used since such its acquisition for its popular Ant.com Toolbar product. This has nothing to do with the Complainant's U.S. trademark claims in connection with its online retail store services.

Also grinned when I saw this in the panel's discussion:

Furthermore, Complainant did state, in its Complaint, that it first used the trademark ANT in 1996. Respondent pours scorn on this claim, pointing out that Complainant did not register its principal domain name until early in 1997 and that Complainant itself was not created in Georgia until then. The Panel agrees...

And looks like they were close on a finding of reverse hijacking.

[TheLegendaryJP]

Forget 2006, here nor there to anything I am looking at.

As of July 2nd 2008, whois indicates Stephane Pacaud as the owner.

Are you stating Stephane Pacaud sold this name in July/08 to Ant.com Limited ?

That would mean the complaintant is flat out telling a lie he spoke with Pacaud after that date in regards to the name ?

That would also mean it is bad timing that after discussions ( that really didnt happen ) the name is sold to a HK company before the wipo is filed ?

Look there's a duck, no thats not a duck, but it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck, no no duck that's a dog.


At any rate John it was a win, congrats. It isnt unreasonable to think someone who has lost wipo's in the past would even consider moving a name to HK when they

felt this coming from a mile away.

. Just a coincidence is all.... congrats to the new owner of Ant.com and having to defend the name within 6 months of owning it and assuming he paid in excess of 2006's $240k, Id be pissed.

[draggar]

That was funny. I should start back up with my site.

So, the attorney (supposition here), represented his client (and charged his client)

a fee to represent and bid in an auction
charged the client fees for filing trademarks
and charged for represention before the panel

incredible.

If you can't beat them, sue them? People like that give attorneys a bad name, too (if your series of events is correct).

[jberryhill]

That would mean the complaintant is flat out telling a lie he spoke with Pacaud after that date in regards to the name ?

Congratulations, JP, that's precisely what that means. The Complainant lied about how long they were in business. The Complainant lied about the site being a parking site. And, concerning that telephone call, you seem to have missed this part:

Furthermore, Respondent contends that it could not have been possible for Mr. Choplin to have spoken to Mr. Pecaud in France on March 20, 2007 since Mr. Pecaud was travelling at that time and had arrived in JFK airport in New York on March 19, 2007 as was demonstrated by copies of extracts from Mr. Pecaud’s passport which were annexed to the Response.

So, there is a choice there. Either US Customs and Immigration had the wrong date on their visa stamp that day, or he flew in to JFK, turned around, and flew back in order to be in France on the 20th.

But, here's what you seem to be missing. They were claiming to have had a telephone conversation with someone in March 2007 - a couple of months after the domain name was sold, and long before the domain name was acquired from that buyer by the actual respondent in the UDRP case. Yes, they flat-out lied twice in one sentence because (a) it doesn't appear likely they spoke to someone in France who wasn't in France and (b) that person was not the domain registrant against whom they filed the UDRP in the first place.

As of July 2nd 2008, whois indicates Stephane Pacaud as the owner.

Are you stating Stephane Pacaud sold this name in July/08 to Ant.com Limited ?

Ant.com Ltd. was incorporated in April 2008, and their product was launched July 17, 2008, which can be independently verified in the version information for the software at Mozilla.org. Yes, Ant.com Ltd. obtained the domain name in July 2008. Obviously, things were proceeding along that course, since they named the company Ant.com Ltd. a few months prior to then. This is all laid out in the decision and, of course, was supported by documentary evidence in the response.

The UDRP was filed this year - 2009 - against Ant.com Ltd.. It doesn't matter who owned the domain name in early 2008. In fact, UDRP panels are used to sticking that point to domain name registrants who acquire old domain names for which trademarks have sprung up in the meantime. Even if a domain registrant is a sole proprietor and transfers the domain name to his personal name, a UDRP panel will call that a "new registration".

In point of fact, it would not have mattered if they had spoken to a previous owner who said, "Oh, heck yeah, I cybersquatted the crap out of this thing and you are going to pay me big bucks for it" - since the previous owner's behavior is not relevant to what this domain name registrant has been doing with the domain name.

Now, JP, notice what else they did....

They claimed that Ant.com Ltd. was "competing" with them by providing internet search. In point of fact, the Complainant put up an internet search bar - using the Respondent's tag line - after the Respondent launched its search site. Then, in the UDRP, they actually tried to claim the Respondent copied them.

You want to see more pure sleaze?

Do a Google search for "ant.com" and see what comes up in the paid ads. Yep, that's right - they are violating Google's ad terms by putting a URL in their ad text which they don't own.

I get the impression you are suffering from the sort of "initial bias" that is the starting point of many panelists. There is this notion that complainants walk into these things pure as the driven snow, and that the respondent must be up to no good. In this case, the entire complaint was pretty much a work of fiction. In the absence of a response, a panel would have believed it. But you seem surprised that the complainant "flat-out lied". Yes, complainants do that, and this one was a doozy.

having to defend the name within 6 months of owning it and assuming he paid in excess of 2006's $240k, Id be pissed.

And, JP, that's putting it mildly. What the complainant tried to pull here was outrageous, and there was plenty of outrage.

You'll notice that unlike a lot of other NAF UDRP's, there was no round of supplemental filings. The complainant didn't have a word to say in rebuttal. Not a word.

Ah.. missed one...

That would also mean it is bad timing that after discussions ( that really didnt happen ) the name is sold to a HK company before the wipo is filed ?

Look at the timeline, JP.

The domain name sale to the first buyer was in late 2006. The alleged telephone call was in March 2007. The completion of transfer to Ant.com Ltd. was in July 2008. It's not as if anyone got off of the telephone and said, "Oh, I have to dump this name in a hurry."

So, we come to early 2009 when the complaint is filed, and some guy swears he remembers the exact words of a telephone call he claims he made in March 2007.

Suuuuure he does.

[actnow]

The domain name sale to the first buyer was in late 2006. The alleged telephone call was in March 2007. The completion of transfer to Ant.com Ltd. was in July 2008. It's not as if anyone got off of the telephone and said, "Oh, I have to dump this name in a hurry."

So, we come to early 2009 when the complaint is filed, and some guy swears he remembers the exact words of a telephone call he claims he made in March 2007.

Suuuuure he does.

I can't remember phone conversations from a month ago.



Antonline and Schultz definitely over-stepped the boundaries of accepted business behavior and with no shame.

And, shame on the panelist for not stating it was a clear case of "reverse hi-jacking".

[TheLegendaryJP]

I feel I owe you some reply after that

I think what I take from this is...

You want to see more pure sleaze?

I fully agree complaintant was sleazy and lied about points. That to me would validate any opposing sleaze and Ill leave it at that.

[draggar]

So, there is a choice there. Either US Customs and Immigration had the wrong date on their visa stamp that day, or he flew in to JFK, turned around, and flew back in order to be in France on the 20th.

They don't stamp your passport unless you're going to be in the US for more then 24 hours (or overnight?) - unless the laws have changed recently (my wife's cousin in France comes here once a year).

It would be extremely difficult to be in JFK one day, have your passport stamped, and then be back the next day to take a phone call (he wouldn't arrive in Europe until at LEAST 8-10 hours later plus 4-6 hours for the timezone difference). If he caught an early flight (6am?) he wouldn't be in Europe until at least 6PM and if I was on that long of a flight there is no way I would be taking calls (other than family).

You / the respondent should have called reverse hijacking (but it seems you did everything else but that - coming very close to calling it).

And, shame on the panelist for not stating it was a clear case of "reverse hi-jacking".

I think the respondent needs to make that claim before the panelists can make that ruling but from the writeup, it seems that they would have made that ruling if it was claimed.

[Gerry]

But, here's what you seem to be missing. They were claiming to have had a telephone conversation with someone in March 2007 - a couple of months after the domain name was sold, and long before the domain name was acquired from that buyer by the actual respondent in the UDRP case. Yes, they flat-out lied twice in one sentence because (a) it doesn't appear likely they spoke to someone in France who wasn't in France and (b) that person was not the domain registrant against whom they filed the UDRP in the first place.

I am amused at all the unsubstantiated allegations.

And, if the conversation was so crucial - it appears that it was not part of the original complaint (if I am not mistake):

Declarations to this effect from Messrs. Comerford and Choplin were annexed to the Complaint.

[tomsa]

I remember that name was part of the names that were stolen back in march 2008.

http://www.dnforum.com/f417/unresolv...ad-282204.html

Very interesting case indeed

[biggedon]

sounds like somebody should be rehearsing their lies before they go to court


would be nice to see a list of persons involved in all the attempted reverse-hijackings and whether they won or lost.


i see it as just another risk in owning LLL/LL .com domains

[draggar]

would be nice to see a list of persons involved in all the attempted reverse-hijackings and whether they won or lost.

That would be great to see but the list would be very subjective.

There are cases where RH is called but shouldn't be and cases where it wasn't called and should be.

But - the Queen of England is an attempted reverse-hijacker..

BTW - John B - If I'm ever in the Philly area I want to buy you a drink, not only are you a great (laid back, personal) attorney and a valuable member here, but your posts, especially ones like this one, are great entertainment.

If you like beer, I can send you some of Jimmy Buffet's beer (Landshark - south Florida) or some microbrews from the Isles of Shoals (New England).