We have received a subpoena related to your domain name ..... (From Dynadot)

[marly]

I received an email from Dynadot


Hello,

We have received a subpoena related to your domain name ..........

Pursuant to Dynadot's Privacy Policy and Subpoena Policy, when required by legal process such as a subpoena to disclose information, Dynadot is required to comply with the subpoena unless a timely motion to quash the subpoena is filed by the customer. Dynadot does not provide legal advice. You should consult with your attorney.

http://www.dynadot.com/privacy_policy.html
http://www.dynadot.com/subpoena_policy.html

Best Regards,
Dynadot Staff
(account [account username])



What does this mean? how can I overturn it.... The name is not TM

 

[katherine]

Is there a stated reason for that subpoena ?
Do you know the identity of the other party ?

 

[Gerry]

You should consult with your attorney is very good advice.

 

[JuniperPark]

You can't overturn it -- this means a judge has ordered the info to be turned over. That's far different from simply a request. They probably complied immediately.

 

[Gerry]

You can't overturn it -- this means a judge has ordered the info to be turned over.

Precisely.

When Dynadot's response to you is unless a timely motion to quash the subpoena is filed by the customer, that's legal lingo to mean your attorney will need to get an order from a judge to "quash" the existing order.

You name/site must be a blatant misuse of a TM or product, diverting traffic, or other illegal activity. A subpoena is not to be taken lightly.

 

[Gerry]

As Berryhill once mentioned, since you are seeking "legal advice" from a forum, these statements could also be subject to subpoena. Essentially, your case is being played out in public.

The best advice is to stop posting, seeking responses, and get an attorney ASAP.

You also need to contact the mods immediately to move this thread to legal or perhaps even delete it.

 

[Theo]

It means that your domain is under WHOIS shield and someone provided a legal clause to have it removed. This is usually done before a C&D is sent, or before a UDRP procedure starts. The other party asked your registrar to know who you are. Per the ICANN rules, this cannot be overturned as the WHOIS shield isn't meant to be a method to hide from the law.

 

[angel69]

Isn't it highly unusual that a judge (geez....) is already involved (I wonder how you guys could tell for sure, I guess one is needed for a subpoena) when the opposing party has apparently not even tried to contact the domain owner ? A mean letter telling him to stop using whatever the domain is, or demanding he turn the domain over to whomever would've been more than sufficient to begin. The TS says the domain isn't TMd, but clearly the other party is dead serious spending all that money and forcing Dynadot to divulge the WhoIs info (Dynadot does not allow the registrant's full name to be suppressed or shortened in their WhoIs anyway so those people knew the name of the entity holding the domain since the very start)

I find cases like this most concerning, and here those people started at 3rd base already. I just hope marly didn't pay that much for the name in case he doesn't prevail and/or can't afford an IP defense lawyer. I just don't get why the claimant did not go the usual route, ie sending a C&D which any registrar forces the registrant to respond to and send them a copy (GD for example gets to make $20 in this step alone) And then they could always take marly to NAF, WIPO or wherever, there was no need for them to have a lawyer/judge team issue a subpoena, that's muore expensive and not necessary at this stage

Biggg overkill on their part even if marly's webpage/site was attracting the wrong/conflicting traffic, was simply deemed "improper" by someone, or something weird was happening with that domain...good luck in any case :uhoh:

 

[katherine]

People can put fake data in the whois, that's why the registrar is being subpoenaed: in order to determine the identity of the account holder, especially who is paying the bills.
That's also what happens in a UDRP, so this could be a WIPO in the making (just a guess).

 

[marly]

Hey guys thanks for the replies, much appreciate it. If they want to know my name they should of just asked, I have nothing to hide, and I don't believe I have done anything wrong. This a freedom of speech issue with a US government department. Okay, this nothing like a Julian Assange case, not in the least bit. I was contacted by this department telling me that info on my site was not true and that it was fraudulent and mis-leading. Then they said we will give you info to put on the site and work with them. I'm really not gonna be dictated to what I can put on my site or not put on my site. Then the Subpoena

Okay this issue can be in public domain cause I really can't afford an attorney right now, so I will spill the beans and I really don't care cause I feel this a blatend misuse of power to shut me up or play me like a puppet. This goes against the 1st amendment and the right to express views. They said I should work with them, maybe because they are scared of criticism of their policies. There was nothing fraudulent on the site, my site had a disclaimer.

The domain is name in relation to the Health Care Act in USA, concerning health exchanges.

You know what I could of set-up a site criticising ObamaCare, but I did'nt... they just want to control what i put on my site, which they don't have the right too...and of cause if I don't comply with them, then my site is considered fraudulent...

 

[barrysanders]

I would just make sure it is clear that whatever you are saying on the site is your personal opinion.

If you are stating things and making it seem like facts then it can cause confusion.

 

[jstewart]

I would just make sure it is clear that whatever you are saying on the site is your personal opinion.

If you are stating things and making it seem like facts then it can cause confusion.

Coming from someone named Barry......

 

[Theo]

If you are not in the US, they cannot control what you write, the same way you cannot invoke the 1st Amendment
However, they can contact your web host and invoke the DMCA; again, you can move to a host outside the US.
The fact that they want your 'real info' by contacting the registrar is alarming.
You can PM me the web site if you want my opinion on the content etc.

 

[marly]

Yeah okay thanks guys... no i'm in Australia so I don't know how the laws will work. I am going to write my own motion to squash it and then contact an attorney in the US to send it. The strangest thing is they where cool if I put their stuff on my site, but because I refused now all of a sudden I'm a criminal.

Is there any attorney that can post the motion to squash for me... you just have to print and post it for me...

 

[INFORG]

You may want to put together a brief summary of what is going on and contact some folks that may be able to help or publicize your plight.
I would start with the Electronic Frontier Foundation ( eff.org ) and maybe see if Reason.com would want to cover the story - they also have a lot of contacts with free legal groups that handle freedom of speech and other related issues.

I think it is likely too late to quash the order and they already have your contact information.

Good luck.

 

[Tia Wood]

Are you selling anything on the website? Or any ads or PPC?

 

[JuniperPark]

Actually it sounds more like a libel situation -- that he has posted something defamatory and and factually untrue. 'Freedom of Speech' doesn't include freedom to libel others. You can post opinions and true facts, but not untrue facts.

 

[marly]

No ads,

What are true facts???? what might be true to some may be false to others... Especially in a political arena. Is Jesus a Messiah, Prophet or Son of God.

Are facts debatable?


Thanks INFORG for the info


Anyway...Jurisdictions and Subpoena's... I'm not a US citerzen yet dynadot resides in US..so I don't stand a chance...

 

[JuniperPark]

If you don't know the difference between fact and opinion, you probably should not be publishing anything at all on websites.

 

[Jack Gordon]

There is honor in provoking a fact-based, rational debate.

Not so much in spreading false and inflammatory information, especially about national policy from overseas.

Which are you doing?

The only good advice you should follow is to consult with an attorney. Many will do a free or cheap consult to give you an idea of what the future looks like.

If you don't care about the consequences, the only way you will get useful perspectives around here is to give us the url in question. But don't do it before consulting with an attorney.