Quote:
Originally Posted by jberryhill 
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.