Giovanni Laporta the CEO Yoyo.Email has made an extensive post on UDRPSearch.com, venting his thoughts about the UDRP/URS process the panelist, the process, domain names, trademarks and his motivation behind YoYo mail and his defense of what he says is around 50 UDRP/URS cases.
According to UDRPSearch, YoYo has been the subject of 39 UDRP/URS cases and lost all but 2.
These comments were made by Mr. Laporta in response to one of those lost decisions on Mysql.email and a comment made by a Mr. Levy to wit:
“”Mr. Laporta still hasn’t explained why he is going to such great lengths to hold on to his trademarked .email domains. Most entrepreneurs who are focussed on the bottom line would have moved on by now. The time, effort, and money he’s spending on domains which he claims will never be seen by the public implies that he is, in reality, expecting some significant profit from these domains and a big return on his legal investment.””
Here is Mr. Laporta response, it is not short:
LAWYER MISSES THE POINT. AGAIN.
As usual Levy misses my original point, in that, how does what Lowry say (the UDRP panelist in the case) make me a liar?
Evidently, Levy has no answer, instead proceeds with more side stepping and pointless questions my lawyers have answered a thousand times in detail:
First let’s tackle Levy’s undertone.
It’s not illegal to hold on to your property.
It’s not illegal not to move on by now.
It’s not illegal to spend time and effort.
It’s not illegal to spend money on domains that may (or may not) be seen. It’s not illegal to expect to make money on a legal investment, but somehow you believe it is, or why else write it?
You are looking for trouble when there is no trouble.
You like to generalise which is the default to stimulate hours.
It’s all about billable hours to you types of lawyers.
Rack them up because people will pay, we operate in an emotive sector. Yeap, that’s what you lawyers do and I’m the one you say acts in bad faith. Do you really believe I’ve done something wrong?
Does the evidence actually say it? It does if you twist it..
Comment 1. Why am I going to such great lengths to hold on to his domain names?
One. I paid money for them.
Two. Their mine.
Three. I protect what’s mine.
Four. I don’t like my property being taken from me.
Five. It’s a natural reaction to protect your property.
Five (SIC) . Why the stupid question? If you took the time to think about it you actually answered your own question the moment you said “his” trademarked .email domains. People, kind of object when things are taken from them, this is why I go to great lengths. But you would like to believe otherwise and I guess you have too, its how you rack up the hours for the big cooperates to pay.
Comment 2. Most entrepreneurs who are focused on the bottom line would have moved on by now.
One. You are obviously not an entrepreneur the naivety of the question tells me this.
Two. What drives an entrepreneur is motivation not to walk away from resistance, especially the stupid or corrupt kind. You say no. We say **** you.
Three. Entrepreneurs are nonconformist this is how we get our results.
Four. An entrepreneur’s focus is not all about the bottom-line.
Five. You don’t know this entrepreneur, so generalizing about entrepreneurs, don’t help your cause, besides I’m allowed to be different.
Six. Believe or not I actually take a defense position after being called all over the internet a liar, a serial cybersquatter, a hijacker, nonsensical, a criminal and fraudster; just a few of the lies fabricated against me by impetuous Complainant trademark lawyers and UDRP Panelist in order to support an improper UDRP Complaint and dirty decision.
Seven. Why another stupid comment? I’m sure you now understand why I haven’t “moved on by now.” Take another private moment to think, you simply can’t drive progress by accepting stupid wisdom like yours. So I won’t be contacting you for any advice.
Comment 3. In reality, he’s expecting some significant profit from these domains and a big return on his legal investment?
Absolutely. Levy, you are at least right on one thing. I am expecting some significant profits for providing a useful free service. However profits will be generated legally. I have never denied I want to make money, although, I have always denied money will come from any illegal trafficking in trademark domains names. Shame on me for wanting to make money in business, it’s an absurd idea which if it catches on would mean we’re living in a world that encourages capitalism and prosperity. It’s absurd isn’t. You do everything for free, right. Pot, kettle, black springs to mind. To be clear the certification service itself will always be free.
Levy says “big return on his legal investment” emphasis on his choice of phrase “legal investment”. Was this a Freudian slip Levy? If it’s a legal investment then this suggests no problem. Do you even know what you are trying the say? If I had you in a room where I could defend myself, in person, I would eat you for breakfast. You are nothing but a lost soul thinking you are good at your job, but in reality, you’re not. You are a lost soul, right now, should be thinking I should engage by brain before making any comment on a public notice board about someone I do not know. The problem with you Levy (like many other lawyers) you do a lot of implying which leaves no more room in your tiny little brain for thinking anything else. You types of lawyers are like robots reading from academic scripts which don’t teach when to keep your mouth shut, but teach you well, how to be holier-than-thou pricks. Your limited knowledge is cute. Now run along and go play with the rest of the children and leave the adults to read on.
Domain names (not trademarks) were registered as a useful way of naming, directing and certifying emails by technically linking two back-end email servers. This is explained in the Arizona lawsuit awarded in favour of Yoyo (me) signed by a federal judge. The use of the domain names as I have described is not trademark use or bad faith use. Yoyo uses words that happen to be trademarks for their non-trademark value.
The service is not pretending be anything else other than a new certification email service operating in the new generic .email TLD space.
My service does not compete in any way to services operated by MySQL. Nor do I wish to falsely claim and confuse consumers that MySQL has officially endorsed me and/or is affiliated to me officially. Nor do I wish to confuse the consumer as to the source and origin of any products offered by MySQL. The reality, is that, my service requires the exact opposite of all of the above for success as an independent service, free from external control or influence. Yoyo is the neutral party that sits between sender and receiver that primarily aims to reassure the sender (which happens to be the consumer) as proof the email has been sent, much like regular paper based mail courier services. It makes no sense to try and confuse anyone purposely or inadvertently. This simple fact is somewhat lost on UDRP Panellist and Complainant lawyers (one of them happens to be you Levy, footnote, lawsuit on its way). What is also lost, but to a greater degree, is that a well-argued federal lawsuit is tossed to one side (by both Panellist and Complainants) and replaced with inadmissible written evidence, assumptions and irrational conclusions. This is inexcusable and at the very least demonstrates lack of good judgment and/or extreme bias toward Complainants.
For the sake of completeness and Levy’s curiosity I will now take on the subject of whether (or not) the public can see the domains.
The initial idea is to launch the certification service as a closed software service which means system users can only send emails via my software, so, initially the service works as a back-end service where emails are directed and documented and then stored by our servers by name, domain names need not be shown to the public at this point, my email software initially masks them.
However Yoyo domain names will be used to forward emails to the respective recipient (company) where domain names will be seen.
At this point there can be no confusion as the recipient (company) cannot be confused as to who they are. Domain names need to be shown as email addresses to prove source (name only) and certification and not to confuse people like Panellist and Complainants need to think like to justify their stories about me.
Furthermore. The certified email service at some point in the future “may” be extended so that consumers can send emails via any “open” email client software, such as Outlook, at this point domain names need to be seen because as users need to know who they would like to send their certified email to and we cannot mask domain names in other peoples software and before you think it Levy, the intention is to expand consumer choice not confuse consumers or infringe trademarks. Trademark, generally refers to a word that uniquely identifies a product or service. The fundamental concept and function of a trademark is to exclusively identify the commercial source or origin of products or services, so a trademark, properly called, indicates source or serves as a badge of origin. It is accepted, that if, this concept is tampered with then the law is broken.
However I have not tampered with the concept.
My certification service does not identify or pretend to identify the commercial source or origin of any MySQL products or services.
Simply because we don’t sell any of MySQL products or services or similar products and services. My certification service uses the MySQL trademark in name only to indicate source (name only) and certification. Yoyo uses words that happen to be trademarks for their non-trademark value. Of course if Levy thinks this is wrong then it must be, he’s a lawyer and they’re never wrong.
I will not be drawn into disclosing (for obvious reasons) proprietary know how on how certification is precisely accomplished on a public platform such as the UDRP.
But more importantly I do not need too.
I have explained enough which needed to be explained to establish legitimate fair use in line with policy guidelines and enough not to have my domain names (property) taken from. In any event its tacit knowledge, which means that it is difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalising it. The opposite of tacit knowledge, obviously, is knowledge.
The difference between knowledge and belief (which is all UDRP Panellist and Complainants possess, as to date not a grain of evidence has ever been provided) is as follows:
A belief is an internal thought or memory which exists only in one’s mind. Most people accept for a belief to be knowledge it must be, at least, “true and justified”.
Evidently, UDRP Panelists and Complainants know very little about knowledge, because if they did, they would know what is required, in that, “knowledge” true and justified not “belief” finds someone guilty.
A world run by you numpties (the 50 or so Panelists, Complainants and you Levy) would have people found guilty just for being people, because your “belief” says people have the “ability to might do something bad”. Sounding familiar Levy? It should do.
This is how all UDRP Panellist and Complainants make their bad faith findings against me. Just because something cannot be seen today it should not automatically make it bad faith tomorrow. It’s a far cry from might to do. Evidence should decide between the two.
Now go find some evidence outside the belief system.
Cue evidence.
Oh yes that’s right there isn’t any. So let’s make it up and pretend Laporta acts in bad faith to protect the status quo and fix (contain) our little problem.
If we all say it then he will be branded a cybersquatter and he will back away.
Wrong. I’m willing and ready to take all necessary steps to prove Panellist deliberately suppress the rules to favour a personal view. The current procedural processes and those who run it, as it stands today, neither, is fit for purpose. The narrative is Panellist are hardwired to look for trouble even if there is none. They are inherently bias.
You simply can’t drive progress by expecting conventional wisdom. I’m an ideas man and this appears to be bad for me.
UDRP ARBITRATION & BIAS PANELS
The system is riddled with gatekeepers prepared to twist the truth, others simple make facts up, and some deliberately lie and hide it behind what they call “interpretation” all in an effort to justify their dirty position, a position, which in reality is protecting the status quo not a position that applies the law (rules) correctly.
Then there are the cut and paste puppets, UDRP Panelist (or their Clerks) that simply latch on to what other Panellist say (lies and all) and makes more false finding all because they want to maximise revenue and the easiest way to do this, is to not read the evidence for themselves and instead cut and paste someone else’s bad faith findings, to the point sometimes they cut and paste facts from another case, completely unrelated to mine. These people are intelligent (or at least supposed to be) do they think everyone else is too dumb to see the corruption which is the elephant in room?
It seems neither UDRP Panellist nor Complainants need to provide any credible evidence in support of what the write and say about me, it appears just “fairy tales of bad faith” will serve its purpose.
Bad faith findings have been nothing other than propaganda stories. A plethora of misleading facts used to promote a political cause or point of view. Both UDRP Examiners and Complainants have shown multiple times they have misunderstood the UDRP Policy which is not simply concerned with what the Complainant wants or even the viability of the my proposed email service but whether there was any bad faith intent at time of registration. Both UDRP Examiners and Complainants fail to provide credible evidence that supports policy requirements. Propaganda is conjured up instead.
The reality is that Panelist, MySQL and their representatives know I have done anything wrong, simply because there is no evidence to suggest that I have. Matters have been blown way out of proportion for reasons which just do not stack up to scrutiny. The real reason can’t be because MySQL are concerned about their customers being confused as to “source and origin”, because Yoyo is not saying we are MySQL or promote in any way that MySQL is affiliated to Yoyo.Email.
I’m an innovator and innovators by nature see things others cannot and maybe this is why Panellist and Complainants have failed to “grasp the point”, this, as well as Panellist and Complainants are hardwired to look for trouble that led them to the wrong conclusion. Panellist and Complainants keep getting a hold of the wrong end of the stick. They are actively looking for a bad finding, which blinds them from any possibility of the alternative in that domains names where in reality purchased in good faith guided strictly by policy rules. Other Panellist are deliberately blocking comprehension to effect a particular result.
Some-way along the way the UDRP process, which originally started out with good intentions and was supposed to be a neutral process giving equal weight to all, has become severely corrupt. UDRP arbitrators are playing judge and jury. It has to stop.
There is no independent body that oversees behaviour. This needs to change. UDRP Panellist (and Complainant lawyers) say and do whatever they want. Lie. Ignore evidence. Make evidence up. Don’t disclose all relevant evidence. Particularly to UDRP Panellist they can do this because the system gives them exemption from punishment and freedom from the injurious consequences of their actions. This impunity naturally encourages a culture of lazy arbitration or inherent bias arbitration or the worst kind orchestrated corrupt arbitration.
ICANN should enforce their own strict set of guidelines. Current guidelines are continually being ignored to favour a personal view of the rules. Without consequence to keep people in line, people do whatever they want simply because they can get away with it. If a UDRP Panellist is suspected to be “manipulating the rules to effect a particular result” then any party involved (include ICANN and the Domain Registrar) should be allowed to sue a UDRP Panellist on grounds of professional negligence. Panellist are paid to do a professional line of work. So they should do it professionally. This will certainly help filter out some of the bias within the system and lazy adjudicating. Panellist will need to stop to think.
There is evidence that UDRP Panellist are deliberately blocking comprehension to effect a particular result. UDRP Panelist, who in one role is a Complainant lawyer filing a UDRP complaint against me and the next day is a UDRP Panelist finding a UDRP case against me. Yeap. The lawyer cannot be neutral. It would not be so unfair to suggest that there is a “gang mentally” within the system. This gang mentality has the real potential to wrongfully prevent online innovation something which ICANN promotes heavily for the new gTLD program.
I have had fifty or so UDRP cases go against me.
Although this may be viewed by some as mounting evidence that can be used against me, when the reality finally surfaces that the whole process has become corrupt, it will serve up as mounting evidence of the serious malpractice which is currently playing out in a multimillion pound dirty arbitration industry. This wouldn’t be the first time the exploitation of a trusted process has been exposed.
Panellist and Complainants might be winning the battles but not the war. The war will be decided in federal court where the rules of engagement will cut through the BS and when I’m found right and honest it will find, not one, but 50 so called neutral UDRP Panellist, wrong. It will serve as proof the system is fundamentally broke. I already have the website ready to expose the dirty.lawyer.
There is no unauthorized use of any trademark. For there to be an unauthorized use of a trademark I would have to falsely be offering (inc passing off) goods and services in particular commercial goods and services covered by the mark. I do not offer any of the MySQL commercial goods and services (and never have), in particular those covered by the mark. So, as a matter of fact and law it is impossible for there to be any unauthorised use simply because I am not engaging in a use (or registration) that requires authorisation.
Therefore there can be no unauthorised use. Poignantly to my case I don’t need the authorisation from MySQL to call them by their own name. So, as a matter of law no authorization is required. For these reasons any allegation of bad faith or trademark infringement against Yoyo (me) is fundamentally flawed.
Continuing to say or insist there is authorisation required to use a domain name just makes the person saying it someone that lacks good judgment, therefore should not be in a job that requires good judgment, (i.e. arbitrator).
You are all just a bunch of money hungry pig-headed numpties.
I apologise to the general reader for any choice of words said a little uncouthly. This is a general side effect of being a frustrated human that has been falsely called lair and had his property taken from him by a corrupt legal process that presents itself as justice. I hope you understand.
Giovanni Laporta
CEO Yoyo.Email
Well although I didnt read the whole article as havent got time (got to get back to working on defending my domains through the Court that is ongoing (seriously) as I trust them more than UDRP process) but I must say I agree with Giovanni’s sentiments in the beginning of article. They have twisted the UDRP so it no longer reflects the intentions when it was first brought into being, and now instead of being to enable well know TM holders to shortcut (a bit like summary Judgment I guess) it NOW is being abused by lawyers who likely tell their clients”you may as well it only costs small $” .
Hi John, got your email. Thanks for the support.
This outcome is no shock. Whatever his intentions, Mr. Laporta took an enormous risk by registering so many trademarked terms, making himself a magnet for litigation by well funded parties.
Nevertheless, I do feel some sympathy for him, given the energy he put into his own defense, the loss of money and time he incurred, and (most of all) what appears to be the UDRP panel’s prejudice against him. Rant or not, Mr. Laporta’s rebuttal is – in many parts – a sound argument.
It is, frankly, offensive that a UDRP panel would
(1) Find it suspicious that a domain owner resists confiscation of his property (“Mr. Laporta still hasn’t explained why he is going to such great lengths to hold on to his trademarked .email domains”)
(2) Fault him for not having surrendered and moved on (“Most … would have moved on by now”)
(3) Criticize him for not being focused on the bottom line (“Most entrepreneurs … are focussed on the bottom line”)
(4) Simultaneously criticize him for seeking to make money (“he is, in reality, expecting some significant profit”)
At first glance, any large batch of trademarked terms being registered as domains looks highly suspect. Most of us, myself included, tend to assume cybersquatting. But Mr. Laporta did detail a rather unconventional plan for using these domains in potentially non-infringing way. And surely the lengths he went to to defend himself ought to cause those sitting in judgment to give him some benefit of the doubt.
Perhaps the domains deserved to be seized and Mr. Laporta deserved to lose the UDRPs on legal grounds. I don’t pretend to know, since I’m no legal expert and haven’t really looked into the case. But it seems clear to me that the UDRP panel decided against him based on a first impression, that he was pre-judged to the extent that even his wish to defend himself is criticized by the panel. He’s neglecting money? They pronounce him a fool. He’s seeking money? They assume bad faith. Damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t!
Frankly, I think Mr. LaPorta was wrong to pursue this from a practical business standpoint. But the UDRP panel should stick to the legal question. Imagine if a court, while finding someone guilty of drunk driving, also lectured them as follows:
“The defendant still hasn’t explained why he is going to such great lengths to maintain his innocence against these drunk driving charges, of which we find him guilty. Most people who are focused on sober, responsible city transit would have moved on by now, pleading guilty, paying the fine, and attending remediation classes until their drivers license is reinstated. The time, effort, and money he’s spending to protest his innocence implies that he is, in reality, expecting to get off the hook and continue driving to destinations unknown.”
Joseph. Firstly thank you for remaining neutral.
Most of the biggest success stories at some point in the journey have had to consider enormous risks. Although I must admit when my team purchased the domain names I didn’t think it was a risk. I was new to the whole domain name thing. I consulted trademark and UDRP experts, one being The Hornable Neil Brown an experienced WIPO UDRP Panelist, everyone said the same thing I had followed law and UDRP policy rules. So I purchased and that was that. What has ensued is now “the risk” the risk has now become a point of principal and to prove a point of law, in that, rules and law can’t be bent to suit someone arbitrary view of a legal process. Exactly what Complainant lawyers and UDRP (lawyer panellist) have been doing. Incidentally. I’m also well-funded. I am also well-motivated. Lucky me, because some aren’t so lucky so have to be crushed by ignorance and bullied by power. I trust you know what I am saying. 🙂
The UDRP system has not learnt and those who run it refuse to learn to cater for every eventuality, in particular for ICANN’s new generic TLD program which requires the element of open-mindedness. The individuals who run it simply do not possess the same quality of legal and fair minds as those found in proper federal judges. The system is inherently bias or at the very least irresponsible, it’s the elephant in the room. I know it, you know it, John Berryhill knows it and soon enough judges with proper legal minds will know it. This is why I will be engaging the federal court to intervene in every UDRP Complaint I will lose, which I am in no doubt will be every one, not because Yoyo has done anything wrong, but rather because the UDRP system is inherently bias and corrupt. The UDRP is a kangaroo court therefore I do not recognise any of its authority. It is as simple as this too me.
This guy should own batshit.crazy
“Frankly, I think Mr. LaPorta was wrong to pursue this from a practical business standpoint.”
Most practically-minded businesses are running a business of some kind. Mr. LaPorta’s principal business appears to be justifying his domain name registrations.
Every SMTP server on the planet indicates whether an email is received. That’s the way email works. It’s built into the SMTP protocol. This notion of “confirming email has been sent to a trademark owner” makes no sense at all. Take something like BMW.email – LaPorte’s idea here is that someone wants to send an email to “BMW” and obtain confirmation the email was sent. Not TO anyone in particular, mind you, just to a company that employs thousands of people in dozens of departments. Same goes for any of the other large companies on his list. Just who are these people who want to send emails to anyone at random in some company somewhere, and need to have a stranger say “Yeah, it was sent”? Obviously someone who doesn’t mind having a stranger read this critically important email.
Joseph, since you seem to know his “detailed” plan, perhaps you could explain it in some sort of detail which makes sense. Walk through how this would be used and by whom for what purpose.
On top of that, when the EmailYoyo people – who do run an actual email address validation service for email list cleaning – find out, it’s going to become more interesting.
@John Berryhill
Maybe you’ve missed the jist of my remarks, John. No, I haven’t bothered to review Yoyo.email’s plan. I’ve done nothing but skim it because Mr. Laporta’s description takes up space and I’m too busy to care. What matters is that it’s there, laid out, taking up space … and that he cares.
When it comes to a registrant’s rights, there is no requirement that I’m aware of that he have a smart business model.
This statement seems unfair:
“Most practically-minded businesses are running a business of some kind. Mr. LaPorta’s principal business appears to be justifying his domain name registrations.”
For whatever reason, LaPorta sketched a plan for delivering certified emails that are tied to very specific domains. Maybe the plan is crazy. Maybe it’s bad faith. But he can’t very well build any business tied to those domains while they’re at jeopardy.
This guy has been embroiled in lawsuits and UDRPs practically since the day he registered the domains at issue. So it’s hardly fair to judge him for the lack of a functional business. Perhaps he thought up his idea on Monday and was dragged into court on Tuesday. That doesn’t mean his scheme was in bad faith or that the idea wouldn’t have moved forward. Thanks to legal actions, we’ll never know. But the “court” ought to have suspended judgment, since they themselves blocked any test of good faith through project development.
But here’s the underlying principle, as I see it. Must I relinquish my domain simply because my plan hasn’t proceeded toward a functioning business? Because at the moment I have at least a dozen domains tied to future projects that I genuinely intend to pursue but so far haven’t found time for. By your logic, someone would be more entitled to seize my property simply because I haven’t had the chance to develop it. And if they can file a UDRP or lawsuit against me the instant I obtain a domain, then they could also point to the fact that my preoccupation with the domain seems to be mainly an exercise in justifying ownership. After all, I’d have time for nothing else!
I know you don’t believe that, John. If it weren’t for the trademarked terms, I don’t think you’d say this at all:
“Most practically-minded businesses are running a business of some kind. Mr. Peterson’s principal business appears to be justifying his domain name registrations.”
That sentence only got past your lips because of the eccentric individual concerned and the specific domains at issue. As a general principle, it fails hard. A legal mind like yours, John, can see that.
My comments don’t defend LaPorta. My comments attack the UDRP panel’s remarks, which seem to indicate prejudice. That subtle difference might be lost on some people.
At an abstract level, you are correct and I agree with you in principle.
But, as can be seen again, LaPorta’s best move would be to launch the business, or even to have a solid plan for one.
If you take a look at the collusive suit he pursued in Arizona, even the complaint he filed in that matter alleged that it wasn’t really fleshed out (I forget the exact wording and don’t feel like looking it up).
I can understand having a bona fide plan, running into legal problems, and getting upset over that. But this whole thing is more like the underpants gnomes from South Park. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO5sxLapAts
I’m anxious to be proven wrong, but this entire saga has the aroma of a half-baked justification for registering these names. In other words, and again won’t it be great to see me with egg on my face, it still seems to me that this thing proceeded from “what kind of excuse could I come up with in order to register these names”.
The final act is going to be the interesting one. That will be where “the business didn’t work out, so I decided to sell the names”. In other words, in order to avoid “bad faith registration” the argument is that “they weren’t registered in bad faith, we had a bona fide plan that simply didn’t work out”.
Added to this is Mr. LaPorta’s demeanor and apparent concentration of his efforts. He finds expressed skepticism on the demonstrable fact of there being no apparent business in operation all these months to be an occasion for flinging personal insults, instead of taking into consideration the fact that the thing looks shady as all get out. I represent a lot of people in UDRP’s and other species of domain disputes. I can certainly understand, in many instances, why the complainant had the incorrect impression that caused them to file the complaint in many instances. One responds to those complaints with something other than “the complainant is a poopy-head”.
Obviously, if one was entering into the sort of business that Mr. LaPorta purports to be developing, one should expect that others are going to be skeptical of “why did this guy register a boatload of well known trademarks”. Not to have expected that is suggestive of someone who simply doesn’t know what they are doing. It would be critical to get the technical part built – or at least fully spec’ed – in order to do that sort of thing, so there wouldn’t be months and months hanging out there with these unused domain names registered for a scheme which, admittedly, hasn’t gelled to a final form (again, read the civil complaint in the Arizona case). On top of that, Mr. Laporta claims to have engaged in legal consultations on domain disputes prior to embarking on this course, but doesn’t seem to have nailed down the technical end of it (which seems to have shifted in description as the legal situation has unfolded).
Instead, Mr. LaPorta’s response to the perfectly rational stance of “I’ll believe it when I see it” is to spew insults and demonstrate a curiously thin-skinned obsession with rational skepticism expressed on blogs as opposed to expending his efforts getting his best defense – an actual business of some kind – off the ground.
We don’t have a disagreement in principle, Joseph. We seem to have a difference in opinion as applied to the facts here. My other concern is that if this does indeed turn out to be a cockeyed scheme like that of the “Trademark King” guy, then it does a disservice to legitimate domain registrants in the same way that Zuccarini’s antics did.
I have never assumed that Laporta was acting in good faith. Really, I incline toward the opposite assumption; but without bothering to evaluate his case, I can’t entirely assume he was acting in bad faith either. Always having expected him to lose the UDRPs, I don’t necessarily fault the outcome.
Superficially, all signs look like cybersquatting – except Laporta’s determination to hold out. Even that can be read cynically; and I’m certainly cynic enough to be on the same page with your reading, John. But what bothers me is that the UDRP panel seems to have indulged that perception uncritically.
LaPorta went to extreme lengths in a weird case. I believe the UDRP panel should have suspended judgment more than it did … and more than I’m required to do as an observer. Mainly it’s the UDRP panel’s pronouncements (rather than their decision) that I object to, since those impinge on the rest of us.
“Must I relinquish my domain simply because my plan hasn’t proceeded toward a functioning business?”
The answer is frequently yes. Because otherwise you are saying that an outcome based on demonstrable facts should instead be based on faith. In the absence of a functioning business, the entire thing boils down to personal credibility – i.e. the panel should simply take someone’s word for it when they say they “plan” to launch a business. In the Arizona litigation, LaPorta admitted there is no solid plan.
If your defense boils down to saying “trust me” on the basis of no actual facts on the ground, then you have to accept the outcome of the fact-finder deciding not to take you up on that invitation.
I have consulted with numerous domain registrants who registered a domain name with some sort of plan in mind, but no demonstrable preparations toward it. For example, there was a guy who registered a name like help.com, and he said something along the lines of “I registered it to start a blog where people could exchange tips on using it”. Now, I don’t doubt the guy. I believe he was being sincere. But the fact of the matter is that he’d had the domain name for something like seven years, and it was at a registrar parking page. Not even a forward to a wordpress blog with some sort of “here’s what we’ll be doing here” kind of explanation.
Again, I had no reason to doubt the guy’s intent, but I wasn’t going to cash a check for presenting a defense that simply relied on him saying “this was my subjective unrealized intent”. No one is going to believe it, and there is nothing compelling anyone to simply say “okay, I believe you”. Even though true – in an absolute sense – that his intent in registering the name was not bad faith, the simple reality of it is that self-serving statements of subjective intent aren’t required to have the same weight of actual facts. Faith as “the reliance on things unseen” is fine for your soul, but it doesn’t make the cut for rational decisionmaking.
The blog software ate my brackets – the domain name was something like (famous-trademark)-help.com.
You say: “Frankly, I think Mr. LaPorta was wrong to pursue this from a practical business standpoint.”
(1) John, you have said everything I needed to see. This is what appears to be the real gripe. From a practical business standpoint does not fall foul of the law or the rules, but UDRP Panellist appear to believe it should do. Wrong.
You say: “Most practically-minded businesses are running a business of some kind. Mr. LaPorta’s principal business appears to be justifying his domain name registrations.
(2) Wrong. You soon enough will see why.
You say: “Every SMTP server on the planet indicates whether an email is received. That’s the way email works. It’s built into the SMTP protocol. This notion of “confirming email has been sent to a trademark owner” makes no sense at all. Take something like BMW.email – LaPorte’s idea here is that someone wants to send an email to “BMW” and obtain confirmation the email was sent. Not TO anyone in particular, mind you, just to a company that employs thousands of people in dozens of departments. Same goes for any of the other large companies on his list. Just who are these people who want to send emails to anyone at random in some company somewhere, and need to have a stranger say “Yeah, it was sent”? Obviously someone who doesn’t mind having a stranger read this critically important email.
(3) Wrong again, on so many levels. You are a judger and not a visionary. You can only see things from your narrowed view of the world. I would expect anything less from a judger.
You say: “On top of that, when the EmailYoyo people – who do run an actual email address validation service for email list cleaning – find out, it’s going to become more interesting.”
(4) What’s exactly is your point? Ahh yeah that’s it… you haven’t got anything interesting to say. : )
You say: “Frankly, I think Mr. LaPorta was wrong to pursue this from a practical business standpoint.”
(1) John, you have said everything I needed to see.
—-
You apparently didn’t see the quotation marks. I was quoting Joseph.
My bad. Sorry. However what I said doesn’t still stands.
Try again. However what I said still stands.: )
“Wrong again, on so many levels.”
Then how about a reasoned statement explaining why it is wrong.
You have written reams of material on your dissatisfaction with domain dispute processes, but you have yet to provide any sort of fact-based explanation of specifically how your service is intended to operate. Do you dispute how the SMTP protocol works?
Your arguments, time and time again, simply amount to “you’re wrong” followed by personal commentary. It gets old.
John Berryhill.. You are boring and repetitive which makes you all the more boring. I don’t need to explain my private business to people that don’t matter. I have gone past caring what characters out of Alison in Wonderland believe. The UDRP is nothing more than a re-enact of the Mad Hatters T Party. Cue, The Mouse’s Tale.
Fury said to a mouse that he met in the house, ‘Let us both go to law: I will prosecute you – Come, I’ll take no denial; we must have a trial: For really this morning I’ve nothing to do.’ Said the mouse to the cur, ‘Such a trial, dear Sir,’ with no jury or judge, would be wasting our breath. ‘I’ll be judge, I’ll be jury,’ Said cunning old Fury: ‘I’ll try the whole cause, and condemn you to death.’ Sounding familiar?
It’s really entertaining how you lawyers really believe in your own make believe worlds. I hope haven’t disappointed you on the personal commentary. Old or old. : )
“I don’t need to explain my private business to people that don’t matter.”
I gather that prospective customers will be wildly enthusiastic with that sort of description of what the service is.
You are not a prospective customer.
You don’t have the right to someone else’s intellectual property that’s the bottom-line. No matter what system you want to implement whether it works or not, who are you to be using someone else’s trademark ?
Domain Shame. The problem with people like you is that you live in a black & white world when the world is in fact colour so your view is always going to be restricted at best. You are right I have no right to someone else’s intellectual property.
However. Yoyo when purchasing its domain names does not claim any IP trademark rights in the domain names (nor does it have any desire too) but it is claiming legitimate business interest in its property. Property which has been paid for and governed by purchase terms and conditions, which can be said with complete confidence where followed. You will never understand this because of your black & white view. Try adding some colour you never know, your life might improve. : )
My life improve ? your life doesn’t look good at all. all I’ve constantly seen, you lose UDRP after UDRP at doesn’t look like a good life to me.
This might come as a complete surprise to you (and the black & white world you live in) but my life and whether it looks good (or not) doesn’t depend on UDRP loses. In fact it’s quite the opposite I am enjoying the challenge. So, if anything it makes my life rosy. x : )
Shane
The whole business model around .sucks, is that you do have a right to use someone else’s intellectual property so you can register Facebook.sucks and hold it if you put up content telling the world why you think Facebook sucks and don’t put up ads, which is the only reason that a company like Facebook will shell out the $2,500 a year to register their own “premium” domain to stop you from doing it.
Trademark owners and their lawyers are overreacting, looking for trouble where there is no trouble (legal speaking anyway), trying to contain what they see as the problem (new generic TLD’s used creatively within the law) that is never going to be contained. It’s called progress. Get use to it. What’s odd though the very lawyers that are overreacting are those who only exist because of progress which normally is a process that requires protecting not rejecting.
I was thinking of registering GiovanniLaporta.blog and create a service that let people know that blog comments were received by that named person. I think this could be expanded to others too. BobParsons.blog JohnBerryhill.blog, JosephPeterson.blog.
Seems like a winning plan.
🙂
cool
Not necessarily about this cse, but generally I would like to see the Complainants having to show that they would have a “Passing off” action against the Respondent as a “bar” that any UDRP would have to have. As it is at present UDRP’s decisions are being made “on the hoof” with no real consistency and seemingly slowly but surely lowering the bar so low that it has become de rigeur to issue them speculatively. All this does is force everything back to Court where people ,like myself, are not going to be walked over anymore.
Yoyo has been forced to defend its business, service and reputation and ultimately its position against false claims, which are now spreading over the internet. Yoyo has been transparent in why it bought its domain names in the new .email space. I’m not so sure that the trademark owners have been so transparent for the true reasons why they persecute a new start-up business trying to launch an innovative and useful service that doesn’t pretend to be anything other than what it is. http://www.yoyo.email/holding. Further. Yoyo’s intended domain name use as described in the attached lawsuit is not a trademark use. Yoyo uses words that happen to be trademarks for their non-trademark value.
Clearly there has been no trademark infringement or any other unlawful action as everyone knows from the one lawsuit already filed in the District Court of Arizona which was decided in Yoyo’s favour. A federal court order that clearly declares Yoyo’s use of its .email domain names does not violate the UDRP, URS, ACPA or Lanham Act. The judgment (by consent or not) could not include a declaration which the court had not seen as entirely sound in law, and that, accordingly the decision is persuasive precedent. Declarations E. F. G. I, J. K. M.
DECLARATORY JUDGEMENT
https://www.dropbox.com/s/837g4msutcb5jji/2014%2011%20%20DECLARATORY%20JUDGMENT_YOYO.EMAIL.PDF?dl=0
To be clear. Yoyo when purchasing its domain names does not claim any IP trademark rights in the domain names (nor does it have any desire too) but it is claiming legitimate business interest in its property. Property which has been paid for and governed by purchase terms and conditions, which can be said with complete confidence where followed.
Why don’t people just accept things as they are and stop looking for trouble where there is no trouble.