View Single Post
Old 05-13-2009, 02:03 AM   #9 (permalink)
jberryhill
Philadelphia Lawyer
 
jberryhill's Avatar
 
Last Online: 09-18-2009 01:17 AM
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,987
DNF$: 6,350

Send a message via ICQ to jberryhill

Quote:
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?

Quote:
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.
__________________
John Berryhill Ph.d., esq.
John-AT-johnberryhill.com
Please do not send private messages via dnforum.com, email me directly.
jberryhill is offline   Reply With Quote