Reverse C&D letter - WOW!

[dkny]

URLTrader,

that's a good one.


I believe the letter is real, the intention of the letter is to get customer for real, doesn't sound like someone trying to smear them at all.

 

[Lew]

There are good lawyers and bad lawyers - just like any profession. If you ever had any legal issues - your lawyer would be your best friend.

When they are on your side - you love em - when they are on the other side - you hate em.

It is fun to make fun of them though I am a CPA and if we didn't have lawyers to make fun of, they may go for us

 

[crabby]

Take my advice, and send a copy of the letter to John Berryhill. John's a fantastic lawyer for any domain registrant. He's not one of the scumbag attorneys, not at all like the parasite sending those letters. Anyone who visits www.johnberryhill.com would know he's one of the good guys.

If he asks for something from someone here, just give it to him. He's part of the solution, not the problem.

 

[mole]

What are berryhil rates like?

 

[jberryhill]

You might be interested to know what kind of mailings are illegal for california attorneys.....

http://www.calbar.org/pub250/9/s0009-a.htm

(5) A "communication," except professional announcements, seeking professional employment for pecuniary gain, which is transmitted by mail or equivalent means which does not bear the word "Advertisement," "Newsletter" or words of similar import in 12 point print on the first page. If such communication, including firm brochures, newsletters, recent legal development advisories, and similar materials, is transmitted in an envelope, the envelope shall bear the word "Advertisement," "Newsletter" or words of similar import on the outside thereof.

 

[revsorg]

For what little my opinion is worth, I just wanted to independently confirm that I am in full agreement with Crabby's comment about John Berryhill.

 

[options]

I would like to hear that from someone credible here.
GeorgeK, moderators, Bob, Fart, DNF, or anyone else with long
presence on the forum

 

[revsorg]

I don't like being thought of as less credible than someone called Fart! :sad:

 

[options]

Originally posted by revsorg
I don't like being thought of as less credible than someone called Fart! :sad:

:laugh: :laugh:

 

[Fearless]

Originally posted by revsorg
I don't like being thought of as less credible than someone called Fart! :sad:

That's Big Fart.

 

[Lew]

Jberryhill,

Is there an action we should take? They are either real greedy or real stupid to do something so blatantly illegal.

Let me know if you need a copy of the letter I received.

 

[GeorgeK]

options: Yes, John Berryhill is a great attorney, as Crabby said. I've not had occasion to use his services yet (I've been fortunate to stay away from TM issues on the domains I've acquired), but talked to him a couple of times, and also read a lot of his posts on the DNSO GA mailing lists, ICANNWatch, etc.

If you check the UDRP case history, you can see he's won a lot of cases (and the ones he lost were *ridiculous* rulings by the panelists). See:

http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrpdec.htm

and search for "berryhill".

The one I think was most "incorrect" by WIPO was the Edmund.com decision, i.e.:

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-1319.html

Otherwise, I think John has kicked butt.

 

[options]

Thanks George.

Chapeau John!

 

[Bob]

Originally posted by GeorgeK
If you check the UDRP case history, you can see he's won a lot of cases (and the ones he lost were *ridiculous* rulings by the panelists). See:

http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrpdec.htm

and search for "berryhill".

I do not see any of gregr's decisions here.

-Bob

 

[Fearless]

Originally posted by Bob


I do not see any of gregr's decisions here.

-Bob

I never used John Berryhill.

 

[Bob]

Originally posted by gregr


I never used John Berryhill.

Oh. I assumed that since you said you were going to try to get your lawyer to show up here and one did, that he was your lawyer.

I did some searching and found the info I wanted.

-bob

 

[jberryhill]

The UDRP panelists don't always list the names of the attorneys in the decisions. Normally, judicial opinions include attorney identifications, and this is one issue I have brought up on the ICANN UDRP Review Task Force, which has pretty much stalled out.

I believe that some of the panelists are keeping names out of their decisions because then we would know how many of the panelists are themselves filing UDRP complaints on behalf of clients.

Some attorneys include lists of UDRP cases they have won on their websites, but omit mention of cases they have lost. These cases are won or lost on their individual merits and on the preferences of the panelists on various panelist-dependent issues. Additionally, some UDRP cases settle prior to going to a panel, so there is no decision posted. For example, you might look at the universitymall.com decision, where the complainant ran away after we exposed perjury in the complaint, or the papers which are posted at tobacco.com, which also involved a complainant who pulled up stakes and ran for the hills.

Some of my favorite cases were mercedesshop.com, pwc.com, krugerrand.com, and milesandmore.com, because they demonstrate one of the real advantages of the UDRP relative to courtroom litigation. These complaints were brought by organizations which have tremendous financial assets against individuals and small businesses. Krugerrand.com was brought by the Rand Refinery, which quite literally has more gold than anyone else on the planet. The UDRP provides little room for the kind of procedural horsing around which can drive the cost of litigation into the stratosphere.

Back on the thread here, the letter in question has been sent to me. I have deleted identifying information from the letter and referred it to several California attorneys for consideration of the ethical issues raised therein. For example, the CA bar regulations require printed solicitations to have the word "ADVERTISEMENT" printed thereon in type of at least 12 point.

If you received one of these letters, please hold on to it, and further instructions will be posted at dnforum.

 

[Fearless]

Originally posted by Bob


Oh. I assumed that since you said you were going to try to get your lawyer to show up here and one did, that he was your lawyer.

I did some searching and found the info I wanted.

-bob

No, John was a pleasant surprise.

 

[mole]

Originally posted by gregr


No, John was a pleasant surprise.

No, good lawyers are very resourceful people.

 

[Fearless]

I get a spam email every time I get hit with an arbitration from a lawyer wanting to represent me.