Originally posted by ObtainADomain
John, just curious, I realize you must have a good reason for this policy but I couldn't think of what it might be. Why not handle matters on which you've publicaly commented?
It's a personal preference. I post here to relax, educate, and sometimes entertain. I'm not here to give legal advice, drum up business or chase ambulances. Accepting an engagement in circumstances like that just seems like sleazy grandstanding to me. Your mileage may vary.
Where lawyers draw ethical lines is also subject to individual judgment. Whenever I see some celebrity's lawyer on Larry King Live, I can't imagine why their client doesn't fire them immediately. You hire a lawyer to do what you need done in the place where it needs doing - and that place is never a TV show and or an internet a bulletin board.
I believe that people who post their specific situations and thoughts about them here are doing the dumbest imaginable thing they could do. It really doesn't matter if your intentions are pure as the driven snow. A motivated and intelligent opponent is going to take your careless words out of context and use them to defeat you.
For example, I can guarantee you that I look for public comments made by UDRP complainants and use them as well. Althought the panel in dw.com said that they did not "consider" the following statement, do you seriously think they ignored it in making their reverse domain hi-jacking ruling:
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2000/d2000-1202.html
Additionally, the Complainant has admitted that it does not have a legitimate basis for bringing this dispute, and has characterized this dispute as nothing more that a game. In an article in a German online magazine (Annex 11: Article in "Telepolis" - accessible on the web at
http://www.heise.de/newsticker/data/chr-30.09.00-000/ at the time of this Response), Guido Baumhauser, the head of Internet operations for Complainant, characterizes the present dispute as "sportiv" (literally, "sporting" in English). The Complainant considers using the Policy to threaten the existence of a legitimate multi-million dollar business to be a "sport". The Policy is intended to address the serious issue of cybersquatting. The cynical use of the Policy as a "sport" or game by the Complainant merits the forceful condemnation of this Panel.
Now, do you seriously believe for one red-hot moment that some joker hasn't alerted the author of that c&d letter to this online discussion?
It's really, really dumb. Why would you want to discuss your case with an attorney in full view of the other side?
Just because I believe the attorney who wrote that c&d letter is an idiot should not be interpreted as an assertion that I think our original poster here is a rocket scientist either.
To his credit, Mr. Frankel has stated in email that his mis-statement of fact was due to a "mis-communication" at his end. To admit one's errors is honorable. I am not entirely convinced that he did not have a duty to know the facts, and I believe he probably did have such a duty, which is chargeable as constructive knowledge of the falsity of his allegation. After all, trademark registrations provide constructive notice of their status. I do not think a reckless falsity, given the obvious absence of any registration number asserted (which is the norm for assertion of a registered mark), and the ease of checking the facts at the uspto.gov website, gets Mr. Frankel entirely off the hook by claiming "error" here.
) looking to own something that they have a questionable claim to. If they want it, they have to pay a reasonable fee. They had the chance to get the name during sunrise with a pending TM, and they didn't.
