I just wanted to put my two cents in here, since I'm the defendant in the lawsuit. This is a pretty important case for me to win, imo, because I am fighting for the rights of you and every other domainer out there. It is important to keep this fact in mind:
THEY OWN THE DOMAIN NAME IN QUESTION!!!!
There are three important points which I believe make this lawsuit frivolous. They are :
(1) Two Plus Two Publishing, LLC doesn't actually own a federal trademark for "TwoPlusTwo" or "TwoPlusTwo.com". They filed for those trademarks in September AFTER the domain expired and was dropped and they registered it. The federal trademark they are trying to use to go after me in federal court for statutory damages is a trademark for the image and was listed in the TESS search as "2 + 2 = 4". It's the image in the upper right of their website and on the spine of all their books. It is a picture of a two of diamonds + two of clubs = four of hearts. If you did a trademark search for the words "two plus two" this wouldn't have raised any flags from the point I registered it in 7/2004 to the point I let it expire in 7/2009.
(2) They waited FIVE YEARS to bring this action... and I can't stress this enough... brought it AFTER THE DOMAIN EXPIRED AND AFTER THEY REGISTERED IT. There is something called the Doctrine of Lacheys which basically says that if you don't actively protect your trademark rights, the law isn't going to protect you.
(3) They still don't give any sort of notice of trademarks on their site... not an (R) next to the image or a (TM) next to the TwoPlusTwo.com mark at the top. Maybe I am misreading 15 USC Section 1111 but it seems to me that giving notice of registration is obviously required if you are going after anything more than a transfer.
Basically, if they win this and get the $100k they are going after, domainers everywhere should start being a little paranoid... because it will mean that it's impossible to clean your portfolio. If you registered a domain without doing a trademark search (or if the search came up clean) and then later decided it wasn't worth the risk of holding onto it and let it drop, the mark owner can come after you and sue you for big statutory damages... even if there is only a vague connection between the mark and the domain name... and/or even if the mark is only a commonlaw trademark.
Also, just to clarify my motivation for letting it drop... after my experience with PokerHost.net, where I won a UDRP dispute and a reverse domain hijacking finding against the very firm that is bringing this civil action, Greenberg Traurig, I decided to slim my port of more than 5,000 domains and actively try to avoid any domain that could land me on the wrong side of a dispute like this unless it was really worth keeping. Dropping this one was an easy call because while the domain easily made its registration fee pre-2006's passage of the UIGEA, in the last year that I had it parked at Fabulous it didn't earn a single penny. Not worth the risk of keeping so I let it go. Started getting demand letters after that, with the final one coming in December months after Greenberg Traurig had already picked it up. They asked for $15k in damages so I told them to "f*ck off" without censoring it. They filed the lawsuit...
I guess they were in such a rage that they didn't even bother changing the complaint from their standard cut-n-paste copy because one of the remedies they are requesting is a transfer of the domain...
WHICH THEY ALREADY OWN!
There was a good quote in the thread on the 2+2 thread which was taken from Grand Theft Auto and sums it up nicely :
"These days you can sue anyone for anything and probably win... or at least get a settlement."
I retained the services of a pretty cool attorney here in Vegas, Clark Walton... hopefully he'll let me do a lot of the legal legwork myself (I am, after all, the 2nd youngest law school graduate in the history of the degree) and won't take me to the cleaners TOO much.
If you want to read their full complaint, you can do so here :
http://media.lasvegassun.com/media/pdfs/blogs/documents/2009/12/11/pokersuit1211.pdf