• Welcome to DNForum.com - Domain Investor Forum, Free Domain Marketplace and a community for 45+ domain pros
    If you are new to domains and looking to buy, sell and learn about domains then you have come to the right place. DNForum is the oldest global domain name community on the internet and continues to grow every day. There are over 45,000 domainers on DNForum doing everything from buying domains, selling domains, using our free in-house built tools, learning about domains and discussing domains. Take a minute and Register.

Exposed

Status
Not open for further replies.

typist

New Member
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2006
Messages
917
Reaction score
0
this one made me smile today:

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Ain-Jeem, Inc. v. Barto Enterprises, Inc.

Case No. D2007-1841

1. The Parties

Complainant is Ain-Jeem, Inc., Long Beach, California, United States of America, represented by Ivan Hoffman, Attorney at Law, United States of America.

Respondent is Barto Enterprises, Inc., Columbia, Maryland, United States of America.


2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <kareemabduljabbar.com> is registered with eNom.

...

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with Paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <kareemabduljabbar.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1841.html

whois -h whois.enom.com dnquest.com ...

Registration Service Provided By: Barto Enterprises, Inc.
Domain name: dnquest.com
Registrant Contact: BartoEnterprises,Inc.

Just to clarify, while I haven't read this particular decision, my sympathies are often with the losing respondent. The title of this post is a cheap punchline to attract attention...

I offer my sincere condolences :)
 
Is this the same nutcase who claims he can trace any email delivery to any personal computer ?
 
Is this the same nutcase who claims he can trace any email delivery to any personal computer ?

the answer to your question (blunt as always :)): yes, it's the same person.
 
i think dnquest.com is memba here - i remember this name from before??
 
another idiot noted
so caleld Stuff`s "hall off fame"
 
I just skimmed the decision - the panelist must have been smoking crack:

At some point the site included, as either a hyperlink or Internet address, the following: “www.vegasgamblers.com/kaj.” Respondent owns and operates a commercial website at <www.vegasgamblers.com>.

I doubt our friend dnquest owns a domain like vegasgamblers.com - more likely it's vegasgamblers.info ;)
 
Bump for its significance
 
Now this is funny.

He's been scolding cybersquatters here for years and pointing to their wicked ways.

Oh, Oh... The Complainant Sez:
The use to which Respondent has put the website is not legitimate or bona fide under the Policy, as it includes a connection to gambling, an activity not only unrelated to Mr. Abdul-Jabbar but also anathema to his Muslim faith. As such Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name has tarnished Complainant’s trademarks.

Could this be grounds for further legal action?
 
So I guess it is true about cyberphobia. :D
 
Usage, usage, usage...sheesh...
 
Could this be grounds for further legal action?
Or fatva ? (Salman Rushdie, Danish cartoons etc.)
 
So still no feedback from our new typosquatting colleague DNQUEST ?
 
So still no feedback from our new typosquatting colleague DNQUEST ?

here's what he would say - actually what he did say ( http://www.dnforum.com/f34/domains-containing-tms-thread-192375.html ):

Teh best advice is you will ever get is this...

Go to the legal section, use the search bar and type in "trademark" and "tm", spend about a week ready everything. You will save time, moeny, hassles and headaches.

As far as potentional penalties:

Loss of the domain
Loss of all monies gained from the domain
Loss earnings of the TM holder
Punitive damages
Your legal fees
Thier legal fees
$100,000.00 for violation of the Lanham Act
Labeled forever as a cybersquatter (which could affect future disputes)

So he lost the domain, and he's labeled forever as a cybersquatter now. Hell, they may continue to go after him, and there's a risk he'll have to pay punitive damages, legal fees, statutory damages (Lanham)...

Maybe he's just staying in bed all day long now - too many hassles and headaches?
 
Maybe he's just staying in bed all day long now - too many hassles and headaches?
Or depressed/suicidal, because his life is finished - I mean to be Labeled forever as a cybersquatter - that's bad, no ?
 
As much as DNQuest annoys me...the name wasn't actually THAT bad, if he had created a fan site instead of forwarding it to his casino domain, he probably would have won the case.

Still pretty ironic though...
 
Anything new in this scandal ?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom