Geschätzten Strandanzug Zuccarini - gegen - Toyota - Klassenkamerade - Vorhut

[domainfinder]

wow....... poor john, you've been living with that nightmare for over 2 years??

must be such a relief to get it off your chest huh?

you silly silly man, don't you know that prison is where you truly belong ? besides, it will be a much nicer place there than where you're destined to go in the end

we'll pray for you.............

even though you are a certified loser

 

[revsorg]

Courtroom drama meets Thelma and Louise. I wonder if the film rights are still available? I see Danny DeVito or Joe Pesci playing the part of John, and Nicholas Cage or Harrison Ford as Howard.

 

[ShaunP]

John ... remember ... it's only supposed to be ONE pill a day.

 

[Bob]

Originally posted by JOHN ZUCCARINI
gregr - you want some perfect names I got some for you -

but as you know howard is a ****ing jackass - and that's I'm calling him

So goodbye dnforum

GoodBye.org

Don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

-Bob

 

[pljones]

Zuccarini has filed two new cases in Germany to challenge recent WIPO decisions issued in favor of Minor League Baseball and Teen Magazine. Links to the new complaints are available here: http://www.udrplaw.net/UDRPappeals3.htm at #71, #72

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Zuccarini is RIGHT in the Minor League Baseball and Teen Magazine cases.

Even a convicted cybersquatter has the right to own generic domains.

 

[peter]

so.. I don't get everything here:

1. Why was John called to court anyways?

2. Why couldn't Howard tell the court where he lived?

3. ... don' know, I just have 2 questions

 

[HOWARD]

Giving the devil his due, John was victimized by a highly biased judge who, without any evidence before him, decided against John in a typosquatting case. John tried to avoid service of process, and in fact was not properly served under the law, but the Judge decided to rule against him anyway even though he did not have an opportunity to defend himself.

 

[YOYOYO]

I just saw on the wipo site that John won an arbitration case for frelotto.com.

I recall reading somewhere that he has won more arbitration decisions than any other respondent.

I believe he has won about 10 aribitration cases. That did kind of surprise me after hearing all the things that supposedly he has done.

 

[YOYOYO]

signguy looks like you are the real certified loser here :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

a message from a thread about fabulous.com by signguy - you got 20k domains, and no typos, right........ :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

not only are you the real certified loser but a dopey ass lyin giant sloppy ass hypocrite certified loser - :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

you even used your name in this one, what were you afraid John was going to go lookin for dopey goofy ass......:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

-------------

fabulous.com
i can also vouch for fabulous.com ...
i was thier "beta user" for the first half of last year, i've regged over 20k domains there and can honestly say that they've designed everything around the needs/demands of us, their end-users/

darkbluesea.com companies are a force to be recconed with, mark my words.......

in 2-5 years from now, if you are not in business with them, you'll look back and wish you had gotten in on the ground floor.

best of luck!

steven
-------------

http://dnforum.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=17165

somebody hold me up - I can't stop laughin........ :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[pljones]

Zuccarini did win the frelotto case. It's an interesting decision, because the Panel considers Zuccarini's past history but says that "given the wave of decisions against Mr. Zuccarini and his continuing activities, it appears that he has come to treat adverse UDRP decisions simply as a cost of doing business."

I have a problem with Hughes' use of the Giancola decision to back up his reasoning. That case was rejected (and overturned) by the Eastern District of Virginia in 2001. But I won't harp on that any further, feel free to read my short blip on the decision at http://udrplaw.net/news.htm

 

[YOYOYO]

The reference to the Giancola decision was to illustrate one point which freelotto made in the case and was not meant to agree or disagree with what another panel or court, in one particular country might do, where their jursidiction is limited to a certain geographical area.

freelotto wanted Justin Huges to say that the use of frelotto.com as it was being used, was not legitimate and that was a reason enough by itself to transfer the name.

The ncaa in the Giancola case claimed since gambling on college sports is not allowed in the US, that was not a legitmate use for the ncaa domains, so they should be transferred.

Justin made the claim that it is not appropriate for an international panel to say what is or is not a legitimate use for a domain since there are different laws and degress of cultural attitude in every country which address that issue.

Since gambling on college sports is not illegal in some countries it cannot be considered an across the board illegitimate activity by an international panel.

 

[YOYOYO]

pljones,

I saw your comment on the udrplaw.net site and I believe it does not represent what happened in the case.

Justin Hughes in referencing The NCAA v. Giancola case, does not portend this to be the reasoning for John Zuccarini winning the frelotto.com decision.

The NCAA v. Giancola decision was sited for one reason, to address only the issue as raised by the plaintiff, what defines "legitimate use," and how "legitimate use," is defined by an international panel, such as available through the wipo.

I know of no reasons that would not have allowed the NCAA v. Giancola decision to be cited in this case, for why it was referenced, nor in any other case, no matter the outcome.

The reasoning used to allow John to keep the domain is referenced by other cases in the decision relating to the date of registration of the John's domain frelotto.com, the date of application and granting of a trademark for freelotto.com, and the understanding that freelotto.com was granted a trademark as a "descriptive term" as opposed to a "suggestive term."

A "descriptive term" requiring much more time in use to acquire valid recognition as a trademark.

The cases referenced for awarding the name to John are contained in a paragraph from the decision below. One case, in fact John had won, e-duction, inc. v. John Zuccarini. The domain eduction.com was registered by John as a misspelling of education.

The reasoning in the frelotto.com case, although John's domain was registered 5 months after the application for a trademark for freelotto.com. The domain freelotto.com did not gain actual acceptable status as mark, because of it's classification as a "descriptive term" till well after the registration of John's domain.

-------------
"There is already a substantial body of UDRP decisions concluding that, in the absence of special circumstances as discussed below, a trademark that did not exist at the time the disputed domain name was registered cannot serve as the basis for a claim under ICANN’s dispute resolution system. See John Ode d/ba ODE and ODE - Optimum Digital Enterprises v. Intership Limited, WIPO Case No. D2001-0074 (May 1, 2001), (three member panel of "unanimous view that the trademark must predate the domain name"); e-Duction, Inc. v. John Zuccarini, d/b/a The Cupcake Party & Cupcake Movies, WIPO Case No. D2000-1369 (February 5, 2001); Open Systems Computing AS v. Alberto degli Alessandri, WIPO Case No. D2000-1393 (December 11, 2000); Telaxis Communications Corp. v. William E. Minkle, WIPO Case No. D2000-0005 (Respondent registered domain name when "[c]omplainant . . . had no trademarks, domain names or websites using the phrase "telaxis"); Meteor Mobile Communications v. Frank Dittmar, WIPO Case No. D2000-0524 (July 17, 2000), (registration substantially predated both the incorporation of the Complainant and its registration of the trading name METEOR); Foreight Corp. v. Servos, No. AF-0473 (eResolution, December 15, 2000), (domain name was registered "well before Complainant began to use the mark TradeSite")."

 

[wildshades]

Looking back through this thread, I couldn't believe what I just saw.

Howard, saying "giving the devil his due", referring to John Zuccarini

It seems to me from what I read here, that Howard you are indeed the real "devil" of this scenario.

You told John he needed to pay a judgment to the court, before he could file a federal appeal for the joe cartoon case.

$90,000 yet.

You can't be serious.

I didn't see any follow up on that.

That puts you in the "devil" category right there. Obviously advising a client, without having any idea what you are talking about.

You wouldn't have to do anything else, to enter the "realm of the devil."

But, apparently you did.

You actually gave your client up to the other side, totally unbelievable.

I am really surprised you're still standing.

So let's see, you have Lucifer, Jezebelle and Howard, a family of sorts, all sitting around the devil's fireplace trying to replenish the warmth to their cold soles, exchanging stories of the evil they have spun.

And you are here trying to give advice.

It seems to me that John Zuccarini was chosen for some reason to be the focus of a push by the government and trademark lobby to show if anyone tried to treat domain names as an object of speech, rather than an extension of assumed legal property they would, for all intent and purposes, be destroyed.

From what I have seen in recent weeks, he has shown in the courts and arbitration hearings that there are views and opinions that would move towards a different point of view.

 

[HOWARD]

Unfortunately, you don't have your facts straight before you write your slanderous accusations. In U.S. Federal Court, in appealing a decision of a District Court to a Circuit Court, you must post a supersedeas bond of an amount in excess of the judgment in order to prevent the Plaintiff/Appellee from executing on the judgment. This is what John did in order to keep the money out of the hands of Shields while he was appealing the decision.

Your ignorance WILDSHADES must really be bliss.

 

[wildshades]

Your PATHETIC reply is truly and remarkably laughable.

Not only do you apparently continue to lie to cover up your misdeeds and lack of knowledge concerning federal law but you even propose impossible circumstances as you grovel to support your slithering ways.

It is certainly you who does not have your facts straight concerning this issue as you ignore the message by John Zuccarini in this thread, in addition to suggesting circumstances that would defy logic.

It was clear from the ruling and tone of the Philadelphia court in the joe cartoon case that there was not a chance in their eyes John Zuccarini would prevail in any step of the legal process.

In spite of this, John wanted to pursue an appeal, knowing that even this appeal, was more than a long shot.

It makes all the sense in the world the best way to pursue this appeal is to do so with the least risk to ones assets.

He has stated here and on other message boards that you clearly told him to pursue an appeal, one needed to post the judgment to the court, this without your telling him it was only to be done to protect him from attorneys attempting to collect the judgment.

He obviously was not going to throw $90,000 dollars away.

It is a very easy step to protect your finances by moving money out of the financial institutions where creditors would look.

In addition to this, unknown to John, he did not even have a chance to win his case in the appeals court as you unbelievably did not appeal the summary judgment.

This causing the appeals court to note in the case that a proper record did not exist and the issues which John wanted the appeal to be heard on, could not be done.

It is unfortunately your state of a natural, rapidly expanding, radiant IGNORANCE, in which you BLISSFULLY exist, that amazes even the devils disciples.

"Jezebelle, Lucifer and Satan I call you, Howard will shortly take on a new case."

 

[Loun]

Slow day for domains?

Let this thread die... Go find something productive to post about and when you do so then come back and post it.

This drivel is not worth the email that gets sent to me saying someone replied to it.
Why not just agree that the people on this side of the room ---->| dont like Mr. Zuccini and we will agree that the people on this side of the room |<----- don't like Mr. Neu. And there are also the people in the middle of the room ---->|<----- that like to post so no matter what side they take they will come up with something to say.

-Lou

Hopefully something eventful will happen today

 

[pergiustizia]

Le persone dicono a me.

"Fa Howard FORNICATE COL DIAVOLO"

Dico......

"Se Howard fa FORNICATE COL DIAVOLO, non me ha detto di esso!!"

HA HA HA :laugh: :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[charles]

Originally posted by beatz


Yeah but as this can *always* happen ( you never know) i would like to be sure that if this would happen ( not parting on good terms ) my ex lawyer would still be bound to some nondisclosure thing, or even better would not disclose anything simply just out of business ethics principles.

Important issue. The duty of confidentiality does bind a lawyer after the conclusion of the relationship, however, it does not cover everything the lawyer learned in the course of the relationship. A lawyer is ethically bound to keep secret the content of any communication that was actually confidential, and which has been kept confidential by the client. To fit this definition, the communication has to take place at a private meeting or in a letter, email or memorandum that is distributed only to the person or persons who need to have that confidential information. If the information is intentionally circulated beyond such persons, the privilege is waived. The privilege is usually not waived by an unintentional disclosure, and is certainly not waived if someone exploits a security weakness by stealing email or correspondence, or eavesdropping, tapping phones and such. (Although for Federal government prosecutions the rules have totally changed post 9-11.)

To dramatize an intentional waiver situation, let's assume for sake of illustration that Jake comes out of a meeting with his lawyer and tells Anna the receptionist, "Yeah, I just admitted to your boss that I forged the check, but he thinks he can get me off." The receptionist is dating the local DA, and passes on the information. At trial, the DA confronts Jake, who has decided to testify that he did not sign the check. The court stenographer records the tragic results:

DA: Didn't you tell Anna Maria Vesuvius, your lawyer's receptionist, that you told her boss that you did sign the check?

Jake's Lawyer: Objection, your honor, he's repeating a privileged communication.

DA: Your honor, the privilege was waived when the defendant related the communication to Ms. Vesusius.

Jake's Lawyer: You honor, Ms. Vesuvius is part of my staff. A communication to her about of legal matter is covered by the privilege.

Judge: Really? Was the communication necessary to the rendering of legal services?

Jake's Lawyer: stammer stammer

Judge: Objection overruled. Answer the question.

Jake: No, I didn't say it, and I didn't sign the check.

DA: Your honor, I call Ms. Anna Maria Vesusius.

Jake's Lawyer: Objection!

Judge: Overruled.

Obviously things will now go badly for Jake, when he is found not only to be a forger, but also a liar.

As far as obtaining protection from having a former lawyer write about you on message boards, that should be dealt with in a separate confidentiality agreement that could be incorporated into the client retainer. Attorneys traditionally don't include such provisions, and clients who want this protection will have to ask for it, and get it in a writing signed by the lawyer. Then it will be as enforceable as any other confidentiality agreement.

That said, you are probably safer from an embarassing disclosure because most lawyers cultivate basic discretion and try to preserve the privacy of their former clients.

A word unspoken is rarely missed, and as an old Sufi saying goes, "A man slips more with his mouth than with his feet."

 

[charles]

Originally posted by HOWARD
In U.S. Federal Court, in appealing a decision of a District Court to a Circuit Court, you must post a supersedeas bond of an amount in excess of the judgment in order to prevent the Plaintiff/Appellee from executing on the judgment.

Howard,

I have never had to file an appeal from an adverse verdict in a damages, but I do not recognize the rule you cite. The Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure LINK TO FRAP do not seem to prescribe any such requirement. My text search of "supersedeas" turned up only a few occurrences, and they do not support what you have said here. The applicable rule seems to be FRAP Rule 7.

FRAP 7
BOND FOR COSTS ON APPEAL IN A CIVIL CASE
In a civil case, the district court may require an appellant to file a bond or provide other security in any form and amount necessary to ensure payment of costs on appeal. Rule 8(b) applies to a surety on a bond given under this rule.

Can you please show me where the rule you cite is? My inclination is to think that, if you were right, the tobacco company that got hit for $145 Billion in Florida would have had to float a gigantic corporate bond issue to post that amount of cash for appeal. As we know, the appeals court recently reversed the veredict. Did the tobacco company have to write a $145 Billion check for the privilege of filing the appeal? If so, there would be very few appeals, and as we know, there are many.

If you don't respond with respect to the JZ case, I'll understand. I just want to iron out the rule, in case I ever have to appeal a damages judgment.