Domaincar

[Chelsea]

Not taking any side here, but I really think this kind of "discussion" or shall I better call it "slagging of" should be done privately. Meet in a chat room and go on calling you all sort of names...
For one, NOBODY should be called Mengele, the association with this name is horrifying.
Secondly, see my flag? I do not live in Botswannaland. ( by the way it is called Botswana )
So, please, as everyone is allowed to have their own opinions, get on with life and close this thread. Has not got anything to do with the original questions anymore.

 

[StockDoctor]

el deleto poof!

 

[denny007]

I'm done with this stuff as long as the 3 stooges quit bringing my name up in threads.

For how long, buffoon ?

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

JB,

Still awaiting your mini-course on racketeering. Can it be applied to serial cybersquatting?

 

[Focus]

I sold all my tm or typos names..gone forever now...all done. bye bye

 

[maroulis]

off-topic I reg'ed premiertypos.com some time ago... should we turn it into a Premier Typos only forum LOL

 

[denny007]

Since we are off topic, I like this WIPO
"The Respondent is Intellution - You should have bought it when you had the chance
Tarpon Springs, FL 34689, United States of America"
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0914.html

 

[maroulis]

Also, there is no evidence to suggest that the Registrant is in the business of selling domain names or has engaged in a pattern of the conduct surrounding the present dispute. However, one factor regarding bad faith is present: the registrant has registered the domain name primary for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. That is evident from the fictitious name supplied to the WHOIS database that includes the phrase "you should have bought it when you had the chance;" it is also illustrated by the directing of the domain name to a competitor’s website."

talk about revenge!!!

 

[StockDoctor]

Since we are off topic, I like this WIPO
"The Respondent is Intellution - You should have bought it when you had the chance
Tarpon Springs, FL 34689, United States of America"
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0914.html

Decision

For the forgoing reasons, the panelist decides:

(a) That the domain name registered by the Respondent is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

(b) The Respondent has no right or legitimate interest in respect of the domain name.

(c) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

Accordingly, pursuant to Paragraph 4(i) of the Policy, the panelist requires that the registration of the domain name <intellution.net> be transferred to the Complainant.

 

[denny007]

Yeah I like the WIPO not for the result (I do not care about that) but about the whois.

This actually inspired me to consider to change whois on my domains this way:
For example domain Intellution.net
Whois would be like:
Marcello Intellution
Via Suvereto 247
00139 Rome
Italy
THIS DOMAIN IS USED FOR EMAIL PURPOSE ONLY

 

[jberryhill]

You almost make it sound as if he was not a cybersquatter

Zuccarini's guilty plea was not related to cybersquatting.

The RICO statute is a legal tarbaby. Yes, you can stitch together a RICO claim out of anybody that's ever been civilly liable twice. Courts aren't eager fans of the abuse of RICO claims, though.

This input make all those "hysterical barking dogs" look like total idiots.

Um... thanks. But that only distinguishes you as the side of the argument that didn't need my input in order to look like a total idiot.

John's input was great I think. Very informative and appreciated I'm sure by most of us. That doesn't mean he sided with you at all though Skipper.

Stocdoctor, per usual, nailed it.

Still awaiting your mini-course on racketeering. Can it be applied to serial cybersquatting?

You can apply RICO to serial jaywalking, if you want to. I wouldn't be surprised to find some enterprising prosecutor somewhere which has done just that.

<googles....>

Yep, sure enough, it's been applied to serial jaywalking in the context of going after abortion clinic protestors:

http://www.priestsforlife.org/news/infonet/Infonet02-12-04.htm
"What&#8217;s at stake is the First Amendment right of free speech. NOW is alleging that extremely minor criminal conduct&#8212;jaywalking, trespassing, standing on the steps of an abortion clinic&#8212;constitutes extortion under RICO."

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

The RICO statute is a legal tarbaby. Yes, you can stitch together a RICO claim out of anybody that's ever been civilly liable twice. Courts aren't eager fans of the abuse of RICO claims, though.
...
http://www.priestsforlife.org/news/infonet/Infonet02-12-04.htm
"What’s at stake is the First Amendment right of free speech. NOW is alleging that extremely minor criminal conduct—jaywalking, trespassing, standing on the steps of an abortion clinic—constitutes extortion under RICO."

Thanks. So it would appear that serial cybersquatters could be held liable under RICO.

Systematically preying on numerous victims by knowingly stealing world famous, registered, and distinctive trademarks would seem to be no minor wrongdoing. It would seem to be highly organized, planned, and premeditated. It involves high tech and specialized knowledge. The use of fake WhoIs info also shows bad intent. And of course, it is highly profitable as well.

When are we going to see some prosecutions of cybersquatters under RICO?

 

[fab]

At issue in the case is a nationwide injunction that prevents the Pro-Life Action League from protesting outside abortion facilities. The pro-abortion National Organization for Women (NOW) sued the group&#8217;s president, Joseph Scheidler, and other pro-life protesters under a federal racketeering law, commonly known as RICO.

Last spring the Supreme Court agreed to review a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit upholding a jury verdict that found Scheidler and other pro-life defendants guilty. They were ordered to pay $258,000 and told to stay away from abortion businesses.

Abortion supporters, including NOW and the National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), claim the lawsuit was necessary to prevent a growing number of violent incidents at abortion facilities across the county.

John BerryHill could you explain this:

Yep, sure enough, it's been applied to serial jaywalking in the context of going after abortion clinic protestors:

Did you mean this literally, or what were they actually racketeering?

 

[jberryhill]

Did you mean this literally, or what were they actually racketeering?

What I mean is what Hal did above. I do not profess to any expertise whatsoever with the RICO statute. It is a vague and overly broad thing that was intended to provide a hook for going after organized crime, but boils down to making two findings of civil liability evidence of a "pattern of corruption" rising to the level of a criminal offense.

So what Hal has done is what some lawyers do with RICO - conflate saying "you could make a claim" to "you could reach a finding of liability". If you look closely, you'll see the switch between what I actually said, and Hal's slightly-off restatement of what I said.

 

[fab]

Well maybe we can get together to use RICO to put Bill Gates, Google, Nissan Motors and others away. I think they've all lost over two findings.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Well maybe we can get together to use RICO to put Bill Gates, Google, Nissan Motors and others away. I think they've all lost over two findings.

One could make a very very strong argument that given the way he has abused his monopoly, deliberately stifled competition, and reaped the profits to make himself the world's wealthiest man --that Bill Gates is the biggest criminal in the world. I believe the anti-trust laws also have criminal provisions.

But that's besides the point.

Gates is so powerful that he can wear down the US government, so don't expect a prosecution, much less a conviction. With his minority scholarships, his world travel, and his charitable foundation he is cleaning up his image and gaining political advantage; these efforts appear alot like money laundering, to perfume ill gotten gains, whether or not they meet the actual legal test.

The world's most charitable person could be the world's biggest criminal? What better way to hide?

 

[fab]

There's an old expression,"Guilty until you have a good lawyer." Unfortunately, the legal systems don't generally protect people equally.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

So what Hal has done is what some lawyers do with RICO - conflate saying "you could make a claim" to "you could reach a finding of liability". If you look closely, you'll see the switch between what I actually said, and Hal's slightly-off restatement of what I said.

Lawyers also love to split hairs.

So, let's lay it out with the Ts crossed and all the Is dotted:

Part 1
It's POSSIBLE that a claim could be made against serial cybersquatters for racketeering under RICO.

Part 2
Under such an action, it's also then POSSIBLE that an individual could be convicted.

Have I mis-represented anything now? Would you write a recommendation for me to be admitted to the bar?

 

[dvdrip]

DADDY, I have no idea what you are trying to prove for the past 6 pages...

Are you trying to prove that it is POSSIBLE for YOU to sue denny007 using the RICO act?
Actually you can't cause he is not in the US!

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

DADDY, I have no idea what you are trying to prove for the past 6 pages...

Are you trying to prove that it is POSSIBLE for YOU to sue denny007 using the RICO act?
Actually you can't cause he is not in the US!

Absolutely not. Under no circumstances! I have no interest in being a plaintiff or a defendant.

I don't even know who has the standing to bring one of these actions, an agrieved TM owner or the government --or both?

I am just asking questions, and trying to point out the possibly very dangerous path that some DNFers are taking with their businesses.