Those of you who recall this post about Crystal Cox will find the following document of interest.
Randazza v. Cox – Decision D2012-1525
Naturally, I would find the opinion to be a good one, as the Panel found in my favor. However, the Panelist seems to have really gotten the whole point of Crystal Cox’s extortion scheme — something that prior panels dealing with her failed to do. See Joseph Leccese v. Crystal Cox, WIPO Case No. D2011-0679 and Allen Fagin v. Crystal Cox, WIPO Case No. D2011-0678. In those cases, either the Complainant didn’t communicate the facts adequately to the Panels, or the Panels were just lazy in their analysis.
In this case, the Panelist got right to the heart of the matter.
Highlights from the opinion:
In this passage, the Panel lays out in pretty clean terms, Cox’s extortion scam.
Respondent’s actions in registering and using the disputed domain names may appear, at a first glance, to simply be a vehicle through which she provides advertising through pay-per-click sites, but on slightly closer examination are actually components of an artifice intended to extort funds from the Complainant and thus a pretext for a rather egregious variant of cybersquatting. As such, none of those actions can or will serve as a predicate upon which the Respondent can lawfully develop any rights or legitimate interests in any of the disputed domain names.
For you who still lap up the donkey urine that Crystal Cox is any kind of proxy for greater free speech principles, we have this for you:
the Panel flatly rejects any claim, which the Respondent may inferentially be making that her speech and hence her use of the disputed domain names somehow enjoys Constitutional protection, as utterly misguided
And this:
the Respondent’s intention, as reflected by the record, was never to solely provide, through her websites, speech critical of the Complainant. Rather, her objective in both registering and using the disputed names was apparently to engage in a rather sinister and tenacious scheme to extort money from the Complainant. Specifically, the Respondent first posted negative and false commentary on her websites that was intentionally calculated to injure the Complainant’s on-line reputation and disrupt the Complainant’s business conducted through his law firm. Thereafter, the Respondent used those sites in a manner that apparently optimized their ranking on the Google search engine in order to increase their visibility and prominence on search results yielded through a Google search of the Complainant, thus likely exacerbating the injury caused to the Complainant. Once all this occurred, the Respondent then offered her reputational management services to the Complainant through which, for a considerable fee, she would remediate the Complainant’s on-line reputation by eliminating all the negative and false commentary of her own making and presumably also ceasing her use of the disputed domain names. Basically, for a price, she would undo the injury to the Complainant for which she was responsible for having created in the first place. This egregious conduct clearly constitutes bad faith under the Policy.
By Email
By RSS Feed
The Legal Satyricon 
Wow . . . and you mean somebody would actually do that?
I don’t mean “coxing,” which is the verb form of the behavior in which Ms. Cox engages. I mean “lap up donkey urine.”
Fantastic news for you! I greatly enjoy each and every defeat imposed onto the worthless scum known as Crystal Cox.
Here’s hoping she has many more until she is thrown into the loony bin.
Wish I wasnt drinking my coffee when I read that Donkey Piss part though….
When the opinion started using bold text, I started hoping it was the start of parodying Cox. That it didn’t descend into Randomly Capitalized Words and acrylic paintings of scantily-clad ice princesses was disappointing.
But it was still a good read.
HA HA HA
Even more so, the original judgement uses bolded text to emphasize In any event, for purposes of the Policy the Panel finds the Respondent’s intention, as reflected by the record, was never to solely provide, through her websites, speech critical of the Complainant. Rather, her objective in both registering and using the disputed names was apparently to engage in a rather sinister and tenacious scheme to extort money from the Complainant. and Basically, for a price, she would undo the injury to the Complainant for which she was responsible for having created in the first place. This egregious conduct clearly constitutes bad faith under the Policy..
I bolded it for emphasis, not the panelist.
Congrats Marco. Nice work.
Reblogged this on Philly Law Blog and commented:
Earlier this year, Crystal Cox claimed that the WIPO endorsed her practice of buying domain names of her enemies, Google-bombing them with her crazy rants, and then offering to clean it up for a fee. Crystal gained notoriety when she did this to Marc Randazza, his wife, and their three year old daughter.
At the time, Crystal may have been right, as she beat Proskauer in a WIPO dispute for proskauerlawfirm.com. However, today the WIPO found that Crystal Cox’s “egregious conduct clearly constitutes bad faith under the Policy.” BOOM.
Congratulations!
Marc, I’m really pleased that you got such a clear judgement (if that’s the word) in this case. (I didn’t for a moment think it would turn out otherwise, but then I had roughly the same level of comprehension of the nuances of the relevant laws as an Southern Australian Bush Pig).
I actually made popcorn (well, Skittles and Flake bars) to read the findings. It was really helpful to see everything laid out so dispassionately and clearly, especially the “Coxic” (ahem) rants of Ms Cox, who seemed to be so far out of her depth it was almost tragic. I do enjoy a well-written tragedy.
In addition to the finding’s comments already mentioned above, something else snagged my attention. This was the statement that :
“Respondent Cox, upon learning, through the media, that one of the seven additional domain names included the name of
the Complainant’s three-year old daughter…”
That’s a ‘Disingenuous Claim of Compassionate Redaction’ award contender, surely?
As I understand it, the “Reverend” Cox quite specifically and deliberately used your daughter’s name for a domain name in order to upset you, but then she declares that she changed the redirected page content (but not the actual domain name) as an act of decency. That’s… I don’t know what that is, my words are broken thinking about it.
I’m writing a post on the cognitive dissonance of liars and what the lies say about the person’s character, and this will be a perfect example, not only of the state of mind and character required to think of using an innocent kid’s name like that, but the mind-boggling rationalisation. I just hope my words continue to work.
Anyway, I’m really pleased that the violent and vituperative Ms Cox has dashed herself to pieces against your principles. Those are something I can aim for, myself.
I nearly pissed myself when I opened it up and somehow the very first thing I saw was “Reverend Crystal Cox”. I’m not sure why that’s so funny to me, but I cannot stop laughing.
It makes me wonder if she didn’t run afoul a bit of 18 USC § 1512 code. Considering the fact she bought the domain names AFTER she found out Marc was called to testify RE the whole David Aman Tonkon Torp issue.
It seems clear to me she meant registering those websites and posting what she did as a means to interfere with a witness. She is unable to delineate between free speech and extortion.
My favorite sentence in one of her pleadings is how she states “Plaintiff gave me, Pro Se Defendant, less that 1% of what I asked for in discovery which was to prove or disprove tax fraud.” Now let’s be clear here, that was discovery you asked for in Padrick’s case against Cox AFTER she had defamed Padrick. That statement clearly shows she DID NOT HAVE ACTUAL PROOF of tax fraud or any other misrepresentation by Padrick.
But in Cox’x world anything she makes up and posts on the internet is true – including that she is a “reverend”.
Facepalm.
Again, nicely done. But you had me at donkey urine.
[…] week, an arbitration panel issued a decision in favor of Marc Randazza and Randazza legal group in a dispute with “investigative b…. You may recall that earlier this year, Crystal Cox was up to her old tricks of defaming people on […]
[…] wants his name back, so he brought a WIPO arbitration to get it back. And he just won. The arbitrator called Cox’s actions “an artifice intended to extort funds from the […]
After seeing your Twitter about her grabbing Francis Gurry’s name-URL for blasting Peter Michaelson, the WIPO Panelist who ruled against her in the “defamatory, criminal WIPO opinion” that’s the subject of Marc’s posting here, I did a bit of poking around into the names of the people on her new lists …
She also registered EdwardKwatwa.com just yesterday (12/16 – Sunday). Edward Kwakwa is the WIPO Legal Counsel, the other person to whom her “Open Letter” at francisgurry.com is directed. Right now the home page returns a 404, but I betcha it’ll be up mirroring the rest of her crap in very short order.
So, rather than go through whatever established appeals process may be in place, she just goes and grabs the domain names of the organization’s director (Gurry) and attorney, and vents about their employee. Pure Crystal (meth joke is too easy here …)
It’s tempting to look up the other WIPO people she’s said she will be notifying, and see how many of their names she’s grabbed since losing the decision.
[…] If you don’t believe me, Chance, you shoud talk to my buddy Satirical Chas who just settled with the real Charles Carreon, who claimed that the satire site was cybersquatting his trademark (and unlike you, Carreon actually has a trademark on his name). And as much as you hate him, perhaps you should also have a talk with Marc Randazza, who was just granted control over legitimate cybersquatting pages created by Crystal Cox […]
[…] Randazza v. Cox Arbitration Decision (randazza.wordpress.com) […]
[…] a list of domain names containing Marc Randazza’s name and registered by Crystal Cox were turned over to Marc Randazza pursuant to an arbitration decision by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO). The […]