Cybersquatting comes to Narnia – Edited

This post has been updated here.

This entry was posted on Friday, June 20th, 2008 at 8:47 am and is filed under cybersquatting, domain names, udrp. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. Both comments and pings are currently closed.

4 Responses to Cybersquatting comes to Narnia – Edited

  1. Richard Saville-Smith says:
    June 20, 2008 at 3:20 pm

    So, please correct me if I misunderstand, I’m guilty of cybersquatting because I’ve got more than one domain name. Well that’s a high standard of evidence you’ve got there.

    It is not my job to justify why I’ve got a number of domain names (though for the record I bought defensively for the charity and the internet start up I’m a director of). It is Baker & McKenzie’s job to prove I’ve acted in good faith – or do you believe in guilty until proven innocent – you certainly seem to write that way.

    I would be grateful if you would take down this post and reconsider matters of evidence rather than innuendo and inference. Try looking at it from our point of view – a New York lawyer phoned my wife and told her they would take legal action against us unless we handed over the domain name we bought perfectly legally after their sunrise period had elapsed. You may think this is just a “line” we made up – but then epistemologically you will never be able to accept any truth because it is always being manipulated by someone else. Show me the evidence of your position – or take it down.

    Thank you. Richard Saville-Smith

  2. marcorandazza says:
    June 20, 2008 at 3:50 pm

    Yes, I will correct you.

    You are not “guilty” of cybersquatting because you own more than one domain name, but your large porfolio belies your story that you are just some little old guy in the U.K. who innocently bought his kid a domain name.

    Nobody is “guilty” or “innocent” of anything here. This is not a criminal case, it is a pending domain name arbitration.

    The question is whether you registered and used the domain in bad faith. The use is a slam dunk. One needs only look at the website. The registration? I still don’t believe your story. The facts all point to bad faith registration.

    However, I am open minded to your position. You say that it is “not your job” to justify why you have a number of domain names, and you seem to think that I am under some obligation to post evidence backing up my *opinion*.

    Right back at you — if you have evidence to support your story, email it to me and I’ll not only post it for the world to see, but I will also a) eat a slice of humble pie, and b) represent you free of charge in your arbitration.

  3. Nonymo says:
    June 20, 2008 at 5:08 pm

    It’s unfortunate how a single use of the word “methinks” can ruin an otherwise great post.

  4. marcorandazza says:
    June 20, 2008 at 7:38 pm

    Nonymo,

    Ugh, you’re right. I just re-read it, and it is totally lame. I’ll change it.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 1,827 other followers

%d bloggers like this: