This Domain Name Seized from Crystal Cox

A number of domain names, formerly registered by the well-known cyber-extortionist, Crystal Cox, now forward to this post.

On Nov. 30., the World Intellectual Property Organization awarded six of them to me in Randazza v. Cox, WIPO Case No. D2012-1525. (Cox’s commentary on the case is here)

On Dec. 14, the United States District Court in Las Vegas issued a TRO seizing the rest. See Randazza v. Cox, 2:12-cv-02040 (D. Nev. Dec. 14, 2012)

Later, Marc Randazza was awarded $452,740.59 in a case against Cox, and additional domains forwarding here were turned over in a very small partial satisfaction of that judgment.

I prefer not to comment much on the cases themselves, as there has been plenty of that from third party media sources. However, I have put up this post so that any of the seized domain names can point to this post. If you represent any of Cox’s other victims, feel free to email me and I’ll be pleased to share my pleadings in these cases.

Here are some selected press accounts of the story:

Forbes: Hill, Kashmir, “Ugly New Reputation-Smearing Tactic: Going After a Toddler’s Internet Footprint”, April 2, 2012.

New York Times: Carr, David, “When Truth Survives Free Speech” New York Times, Dec. 11, 2011.

Philly Law Blog: Rushie, Jordan, “The Evolution of Crystal Cox: Anatomy of a Scammer” Philly Law Blog, April 3, 2012.

Forbes: Coursey, David. “Are Bloggers Really Journalists? Not If They Ask for Money”, March 29, 2012.

Forbes: Hill, Kashmir. “Why An Investment Firm Was Awarded $2.5 Million After Being Defamed By Blogger”, Dec. 7, 2011.

PopeHat: White, Ken. “Crystal Cox: Not a Free Speech Advocate” Popehat, April 4, 2012.

National Public Radio: Garfield, Bob. “Combating ‘Bad’ Speech with More Speech” NPR, On the Media Episode on April 6, 2012.

Photography is Not a Crime: Miller, Carlos. “Blogger Must Act Like Journalist To Be Treated Like One” Pixiq, December 9, 2011.

I expect even more loony tunes to follow.

14 Responses to This Domain Name Seized from Crystal Cox

  1. Nice work, Marc! :) Beating Ms. Cox in court must be a little like taking candy from a retarded baby, but it needed to be done nonetheless!

  2. SA says:

    She seems determined to prove Ken @ Popehat correct: that pro se means, roughly, “mentally unbalanced and currently unmedicated.”

    It’d take a LOT of medication for me to think it was a good idea to register domains in the name of WIPO higher-ups (Francis Gurry, Edward Kwakwa) in order to post rants there immediately after WIPO ruled against me.

    • lol… I spend every day fighting the presumption that I’m mentally unbalanced and currently unmedicated. ;) It’s really a shame that “pro se” is the slur that it is.

  3. greenerpastures says:

    A lesson to the Crystal Coxes of the world: this is what happens when you take on someone exponentially smarter than you.

  4. Art H. says:

    WTF? One day I’m minding my own business reading the fine musings at my favorite website and top bookmark,, and the next I’m here? What just happened to my world?!?

  5. One thing I’m surprised no one has mentioned… Crystal managed to beat Proskauer under what were seemingly identical facts. What happened differently here?

    After reading both briefs, one thing was clear – Marc captured the narrative. Yeah, Proskauer cited a lot of law and made well reasoned arguments, but it came off like a mega law firm trying to bully a poor little internet user.

    Marc’s brief told the story – a stalker, an extortionist, and someone who is doing very bad things. When you read it, all you can think is “Holy shit, that is just wrong!”

    Result: Proskauer loses, Randazza wins.

    I’m sure there’s a moral here…

  6. […] 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 […]

  7. SA says:

    Crystal’s response to the initial filing in this case didn’t do her any favors. It was yet another spewfest of accusations. What I found particularly amusing was that not once in the entire response did she mention the disputed domains, nor any of the specific claims.

    Marc’s beautiful step-by-step, point-by-point breakdown and analysis gave her a perfect platform for detailing *why* “it’s not what it looks like, Judge”. Yet she uses the platform to say, basically: “HE’S A LIAR AND A HORRIBLE PERSON!”

    You could hardly ask for a more glaring contrast between filings. Was she this incomprehensible in the Proskauer case?

  8. G Thompson says:

    Wouldn’t part (B) and (C) of the TRO also forbid Ms Cox from doing exactly what she is still doing on her own named website at crystalcox [dot] com? On one hand I would think part (B) is very wide and fraught with dangers re your own First Amendment (though I’m a foreigner who knows not of your TRO mechanisms)… but on the other hand I absolutely agree since it is the minimum I myself would expect under equity (and I can’t stop smiling and saying F*** Yeah!!)

    Though looking at that website (I’m loathe to call it a blog) your name as of this comment time stamp is all over the thing and even within the html title tag, etc. Or is there a leeway time period of when she has to do what the order states that I’m not getting? ie: Business hrs or some weirdness

    And Jordan, WIPO is a tribunal setting where logical, quasi-emotional, equitable, and plain English briefs will always work best. They are meant to be non-adversarial hearings where the average layperson feels like they are on an even footing. and is EXACTLY why Proskauer would of come off looking like a bully.

    Plus Marc’s briefs are always full of awesomeness with a dash of snark and a pinch of plain old ‘everyman’ in them ;)

  9. Well fought, Marc. You deserve better, personally and professionally (WRT the TRO at least), but I’m really glad you allowed us to “participate”.

    I think Ms. Cox has now been officially “Marced” :D

    … which brings me to the most troubling thing about all this. She obviously needs medical help, and I’m not being snarky. She really, really needs someone to intervene before she does herself some real – irreversible – harm. She doesn’t seem to fit the profile of a physical stalker, she’s too emotive and illogical and needs instant gratification too much for that. But I’ve seen this exact same vocal behaviour in two ex-friends of mine (ex as in ‘no longer with us’, one on my watch, to my everlasting shame), and I’m wondering if there’s any way she could be made to get preventative treatment before she becomes “the late Crystal Cox, cyberbully, with undiagnosed and terminal mental health issues”. Or can that only happen voluntarily?

    Please note, I’m not advocating some kind of fascist suppression, I’m genuinely concerned. (In the interest of full disclosure : but for modern psychological chemistry and an incredibly supportive partner, I could so easily be her).

    In any case, glad you’ve made it with your integrity intact. Well done!

  10. One of the sucky things to me is this kind of tactic puts a burden on the winner. Domains cost $7 a year. We’re talking a bunch of domains, so anywhere between $35 and $100 a year to renew or they go back in the pool of availability. Times this by the number of decades Marc has left to live and he’s forced into spending money for defensive registrations.

    This was one of the things I loved about the whole Glenn Beck thing: When Marc’s client gave the rights to that site to Beck it put poor Glenn in a position of either renewing for perpetuity or letting someone else snatch it up.

    To some people these sums are trifling amounts and the cost of business. To me…I’d rather have a dinner out once a year than pay to reserve (and others) for the rest of my life.

  11. […] Click here to read more >> This Domain Name Seized from Crystal Cox. […]

%d bloggers like this: