Now if twi had actually dropped the case (they brought it, they could have dropped it), all of this reasoning would make sense...
But they went all the way to settlement...
If TWI had dropped the case before Pat acceded to their demands, that would have been really stupid! If they had done that, they'd have been better off not even bringing the matter up in the first place.
quote:It may have, if TWI had simply discovered TWIM, but that's not what happened. What happened was that Pat sought to cause trouble for TWI by informing TWIM of TWI's pending trademark applications.
Liar. And how would you know what went on? Reading your crystal ball? You make all kinds of wild assumptions about my motives without a shred of evidence. Liar
Pat, you did informed (the former) TWIM of TWI’s trademark applications. You filed for an extension of time to file an opposition to those applications. The reason you filed for an extension of time is because you didn’t have the money to actually oppose the applications yourself. The very next day, TWIM filed its opposition. Now, perhaps you didn’t in your wildest dreams think that this would cause TWI any trouble, but I suspect otherwise.
quote:It may have, if TWI had simply discovered TWIM, but that's not what happened. What happened was that Pat sought to cause trouble for TWI by informing TWIM of TWI's pending trademark applications.
Liar. And how would you know what went on? Reading your crystal ball? You make all kinds of wild assumptions about my motives without a shred of evidence. Liar
You weren't trying to cause trouble for TWI? --> That's what it looked like to me too --> Could you inform us (or re-inform us as the case may be) what "really" went on?
Nope. I haven’t been ignoring you. I've just been working my way through the posts and replying to them in order, but also doing a few other things between posts. (I varnished a bedroom floor I'm refinishing since the last post.) This is my first response to you.
I don’t think I’m ragging on Pat. I have nothing against him at all.
I think TWI is a despicable outfit, but I really don’t care much about it. I’m not all fired up about “getting” TWI or rescuing “innies” like some of you are, but I do understand the zeal some have. I’m all for Pat or anyone else publishing truthful information about TWI, but I think that Pat is dead wrong on the trademark issues. I wouldn’t care much about that, except that some of what Pat writes here could be dangerous for others, if they were to believe it or follow his example.
I’m not as supportive as some are of Pat’s Internet endeavors, but I’m completely supportive of his legal right to pursue them and I agree that they harm TWI in legitimate ways. He could pursue them more effectively if he avoided trademark issues entirely. I think he’s wrong on those issues, but even if he were right, at best they’d be a distraction from his other pursuits, as well as a needless and useless expense. At worst, they could lead to bankruptcy and possibly other personal problems stemming from that, all for naught.
TWI has not been harmed by the trademark disputes with Pat or the one with Global God Ministries (the former TWIM). It has spent a little extra money (see below), but its trademark claims have been strengthened as a result. Every successful defense of its rights strengthens its position.
About that money… Pat thinks he cost TWI about $50,000.00. I suspect that’s high, but let’s accept that figure. Comparatively, that’s like costing me about $500.00. I paid that much to a title company just today, for handling the sale of a lousy $18,000.00 rent house. I paid more than that a month ago, to repair a gas line that had started leaking under another rent house. I pay that much for lots of things, many of which are unexpected and some of which could have been preventable, at least in part, if noticed and dealt with early enough. It’s part of doing business. Similarly, occasionally laying out several thousand for legal fees is part of doing business for TWI. It’s something they’d rather avoid, if possible, but it’s not that big a deal.
Pat wasted a lot of time and some money, probably as much as TWI spent, relative to their respective incomes and assets. He got nothing for his trouble and expense, except whatever he learned from the experience. TWI got what they wanted and strengthened their position regarding their trademark rights. I’ll not rag on him for that, but I will point it out, if he tries to claim some sort of victory.
Since Long Gone was unwilling to answer these two questions, I will
1) What are the elements of trademark Infringement?
A. Someone has a valid trademark for specific goods and services that they sell
B. Someone else sells the same goods and services using the trademark holders trademark
C. There is enough customer confusion that the infringer's goods and services being sold are passed off as the trademark holder's goods and services
Example: The infringer sells blue jeans and puts Levies's trademark on those jeans which infringes on the trademark holder's rights.
2) Why are there laws against trademark infringement?
A. To protect the profits of the trademark owner
B. To protect the public from purchasing products or services that they thought were from the trademark holder's company but were not.
The Judge on my case previously ruled:
In HARLAND A. MACIA, III v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 152 F. Supp. 2d 535; 2001, Vermont Federal Court: "... Unless and until Intuit uses the mark in the course of trade, to identify actual goods for sale or transport, it cannot be subject to suit for trademark infringement under § 1125(a). ...because Lanham Act was directed against false representations of goods in interstate commerce, motion to dismiss granted where no sales of goods in commerce took place...
The question then is, what goods and services are sold by The Path of Christ or ex-wayworld?
quote:It simply wanted Pat to stop infringing on its trademark(s), specifically through his ownership and use of the "thewayinternational.com" domain name.
My use was the same as the case cited below in that the use of TWI's name to identify information about them:
"On February 7, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that a "gripe site" devoted to complaints about a shopping center owner was afforded First Amendment protection for its use of trademarks to attract visitors to the website. Taubman Co. v. Webfeats, Nos. 01-2648/2725 (6th Cir. Feb. 7, 2003)."(Cited in 12 other cases)
Technically you may be correct, but in practice, one generally waits until discovery is completed, or at the very least mostly completed, before filing a motion for summary disposition.
Now, on the otherside of this and for what it is worth, I don't think you got spanked. You didn't file this lawsuit, TWI did. Therefore, it wasn't up to you to simply "drop it". In addition, as part of their Complaint, TWI was requesting you pay damages.
Legal matters/law suites often come down to a game of chicken. Most civil suites are settled before trial. However, prior to settlement there is a lot of research, discovery, and legal manuevering which ultimately allows both sides to have more room to negotiate.
Had you simply rolled over and tried to settle, they may very well have required damages be paid as part of the settlement. By holding your ground and filing a counter claim, you let them know it was going to cost them money to try and get money from you. You gave yourself room for negotiation.
I believe settling was a very wise move on your part and you did it in such a way that you didn't have to pay damages.
So, taking all of that into consideration, and considering you were handling this by and large on your own and without an attorney, I think you did very well.
Pat, I'm not going to rehash what we discussed months ago. The bottom line is this. You got a frank evaluation by a competent neutral evaluator of the legal merits of the dispute and promptly agreed to TWI's demands. You could have done that months ago or, better yet, never have wrongly used TWI's name to start with. Instead, you chose to waste a lot of time, effort, and money, all to no avail. That's fine by me, but I'm not going to congratulate you for it. I think you were dead wrong.
quote:You got a frank evaluation by a competent neutral evaluator of the legal merits of the dispute and promptly agreed to TWI's demands.
Wrong again. We presented our legal points in front of the evaluator.I was ready to go to trial, so I did not make the offer. The details of the session I cannot divulge other than what is in the public record. You weren't there. How can you continue to make dum*ss statements as if you know what happened.
Pat, I often know more about your case than you seem to, because I know something about the law and legal process. You have demonstrated lack of understanding of rules of discovery and the concept of relevance regarding evidence. You've demonstrated ignorance of the jurisdiction of U.S. District Courts, in particular their original jurisdiction over matters of federal trademark law, including domain name disputes. You've even demonstrated ignorance that a U.S. District Court Judge is a lawyer and appointed by the President of the United States, rather than elected. Now whether you really are that ignorant and devoid of understanding, or you are intentionally spouting off things you know to be wrong, I don't know. What I do know is that you do continually spout off pure BS about a lot of things.
Now, regarding Early Neutral Evaluation, I don't claim to know the specifics of what went on at a meeting at which I was not present, but I do know what Early Neutral Evaluation is. Would you have me to believe that you and TWI presented briefs and oral presentations to the Evaluator, but did not get any feedback (frank evaluation) in return? Of course you did! That was the main purpose of the meeting. It is why it is called an evaluation.
quote: Would you have me to believe that you and TWI presented briefs and oral presentations to the Evaluator, but did not get any feedback (frank evaluation) in return? Of course you did! That was the main purpose of the meeting. It is why it is called an evaluation.
Nope. Wrong again.
quote:Pat, I often know more about your case than you seem to, because I know something about the law and legal process.
You may think you know more about proceedure than I do and you might be right. As far as trademark law however, I spent several hundred hours researching the subject and came to the same conclusions that several trademark attorneys did which I had consulted.
And I really don't care how superior your legal knowledge is. I would like to have seen you deal with these guys and see how you would have faired.
You probably would have run crying at the first brief they submitted as you seem to believe all the Bull that TWI's lawyers spewed in their pleadings.
Okay...I understand your point. WHY are you still ragging on Pat??????
ror
As someone who's been ragging on Pat, even though the question wasn't addressed to me, I'll provide my answer.
1. Pat addressed me directly in the first post. I was practically invited to respond.
2. Pat is presenting this as a draw. This was no draw. If you're happy TWI spent money, I guess that's fine. It doesn't tickle me that they spent money that went to lawyers, but if it tickles you, that's your prerogative (thank you to those of you who answered my question on the subject). However, the fact that TWI paid its lawyers is hardly evidence that they were "spanked," which was Pat's allegation in the first place.
3. Pat continues to insist that this was not about the domain name, even though the lawsuit was settled as soon as the domain name was surrendered.
4. Pat did not get one legal victory out of this whole thing: the closest to a legal victory was that he did not have to pay TWI's legal bills (standard in most settlements). He couldn't pay those bills if he wanted to (and neither could I: I'm broke).
5. Long Gone and I have repeatedly been accused of "armchair lawyering," but people who cited laws and precedents in Pat's favor were faced with no such accusation. That's selective and wrong.
6. I believe this entire legal action was a distraction that cost Pat time and money, veering him away from the important and valuable work that he does on his web sites. Excultworld seeks to provide an important service (whether you agree with everything on there or not, the intentions are entirely noble). Money and time that Pat poured into this action could have been spent on improving the web site and reaching more people with the truth about TWI and other cults. I realize, fully, that this is Pat's decision to make, but if he didn't want feedback, he shouldn't have posted it on numerous threads on a message board. And if all he wanted was positive feedback, then he shouldn't have posted it on a board where people are known to speak their minds.
I've been told privately that I appear to be gloating in an egotistical manner. I can't fully disagree with that, and to the extent that it is true, I apologize to everyone, most specifically to Pat. I don't want to gloat. In my opinion both of these lawsuits were solid victories for TWI, costing them a relative pittance. This cost Pat a lot more than it cost TWI, so forgive me if I don't congratulate him for it. That's my honest opinion. If it's better that I shut up about it, fine. Just don't put the subject on a message board that invites comment (and if you DO put it on a message board, don't call me out on the opening post).
I would like to know, if someone wouldn't mind digging it out for me, where TWI ever requested (in its injunctions) that excultworld or any of Pat's other sites be shut down. I'll look for it too, but as it's a claim Pat has made on several occasions, I imagine it must be in TWI's requests somewhere.
quote:Pat continues to insist that this was not about the domain name, even though the lawsuit was settled as soon as the domain name was surrendered.
Again, TWI could have gone to the domain arbitration board and won their case (if they had one which they didn't) and the board would have had the domain name registrar transfer the domain to TWI. Very quick, efficient, done every day.
TWI also never approached me to settle the matter until the Neutral Evaluator session. If the domain name was the only issue, TWI would not have spent so much time showing how the websites were "infringers" or asking for injunctive relief (shut down the websites).
In my case, the settlement came after both parties presented their cases and met with the arbitator privately. I did not make an offer to settle.
I firmly believed in my case and its merits, and was willing to go to trial if need be to prove the merits of my case. TWI knew I meant business and was not afraid or intimidated by them or their lawyers, and that shocked them I am sure. After all, I am a "cop-out" and supposed greasespot versus the mighty prevailing household...
In a very similar case, taubman v. webfeats, the taubman company demanded at the end as part of the penalties/punitive damages that the man's infringing websites be taken down for the infringement.
The court ordered the man to take down his websites. Hank who owns webfeats is a computer programmer and represented himself also. He appealed and the higher court's decision is below:
"On February 7, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that a "gripe site" devoted to complaints about a shopping center owner was afforded First Amendment protection for its use of trademarks to attract visitors to the website. Taubman Co. v. Webfeats, Nos. 01-2648/2725 (6th Cir. Feb. 7, 2003)."(Cited in 12 other cases)
The higher court reversed the lower court's injunction, and Hanks websites are back up and you can read about his case at: www.taubmansucks.com
"Injunctive relief" does not mean "shut down the websites." That's fiction. Nothing in the lawsuit requests or demands that your sites be shut down.
AGAIN: The question of whether to go to federal court or the arbitration board has already been answered. Your refusal to acknowledge that answer does not negate that the answer has been offered and not refuted.
quote:I firmly believed in my case and its merits, and was willing to go to trial if need be to prove the merits of my case. TWI knew I meant business and was not afraid or intimidated by them or their lawyers, and that shocked them I am sure. After all, I am a "cop-out" and supposed greasespot versus the mighty prevailing household...
I'm glad you believed in your case and its merits. That and a $95 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, double half caf. It's meaningless. Whether your case had merit or not would have been decided at a trial, but it never got that far. Be real, Pat, if you really wanted to take this to trial, you'd have done so. Who are you kidding? You settled because "they asked politely"? Please. That's not the reason and we all know it. You either couldn't afford to go forward (no shame there: just say so) or you didn't have the confidence in your case that you profess. If you believed in your case and had the will to see it through to trial, you'd have done it: you would not have surrendered the domain name no matter how they asked.
quote:In a very similar case, taubman v. webfeats, the taubman company demanded at the end as part of the penalties/punitive damages that the man's infringing websites be taken down for the infringement.
1. Neither Taubman nor Webfeats was TWI. The question was whether TWI sought to take down your web sites. Taubman v. Webfeats is irrelevant to that question. What one plaintiff seeks is not the same as what another plaintiff seeks. What did TWI seek? Cite the paragraph already.
2. More importantly, in Taubman v. Webfeats, the plaintiff sought, in your words, "that the man's infringing websites be taken down." Ex-cultworld was not the infringing website. thewayinternational.com was.
Look, Pat, you want to call what happened a victory for you? Fine, go ahead. You want to Pat yourself on the back for making TWI spend money? Feel free. That's your choice. But when push comes to shove, you won nothing on this; you wasted your time and took your energy away from a more worthy fight.
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
27
22
20
29
Popular Days
Oct 20
64
Oct 19
39
Oct 21
36
Oct 18
4
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 27 posts
LG 22 posts
CoolWaters 20 posts
pjroberge 29 posts
Popular Days
Oct 20 2004
64 posts
Oct 19 2004
39 posts
Oct 21 2004
36 posts
Oct 18 2004
4 posts
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
LG,
Is that answer for me?
ror
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Radar OReilly
WHAT AM I???? CHOPPED LIVER?WHY WON'T ANYONE ANWSER ME? DO ALL OF YOU HAVE ME ON BLOCK?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Eagle
That Purple Heart looks great on PJ's site. He earned it. I hope the rest post theirs on their sites.
Eagle
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GarthP2000
Radar,
I think its because your icon keeps sticking its tongue out at people.
Either that, or its being spanked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Hi Radar (you weren't asking me a question - just wanted to let you know someone is paying attention to you)
:P-->
all this talk about spankings is making me sweaty
)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
I don’t think I’m ragging on Pat. I have nothing against him at all.
I think TWI is a despicable outfit, but I really don’t care much about it. I’m not all fired up about “getting” TWI or rescuing “innies” like some of you are, but I do understand the zeal some have. I’m all for Pat or anyone else publishing truthful information about TWI, but I think that Pat is dead wrong on the trademark issues. I wouldn’t care much about that, except that some of what Pat writes here could be dangerous for others, if they were to believe it or follow his example.
I’m not as supportive as some are of Pat’s Internet endeavors, but I’m completely supportive of his legal right to pursue them and I agree that they harm TWI in legitimate ways. He could pursue them more effectively if he avoided trademark issues entirely. I think he’s wrong on those issues, but even if he were right, at best they’d be a distraction from his other pursuits, as well as a needless and useless expense. At worst, they could lead to bankruptcy and possibly other personal problems stemming from that, all for naught.
TWI has not been harmed by the trademark disputes with Pat or the one with Global God Ministries (the former TWIM). It has spent a little extra money (see below), but its trademark claims have been strengthened as a result. Every successful defense of its rights strengthens its position.
About that money… Pat thinks he cost TWI about $50,000.00. I suspect that’s high, but let’s accept that figure. Comparatively, that’s like costing me about $500.00. I paid that much to a title company just today, for handling the sale of a lousy $18,000.00 rent house. I paid more than that a month ago, to repair a gas line that had started leaking under another rent house. I pay that much for lots of things, many of which are unexpected and some of which could have been preventable, at least in part, if noticed and dealt with early enough. It’s part of doing business. Similarly, occasionally laying out several thousand for legal fees is part of doing business for TWI. It’s something they’d rather avoid, if possible, but it’s not that big a deal.
Pat wasted a lot of time and some money, probably as much as TWI spent, relative to their respective incomes and assets. He got nothing for his trouble and expense, except whatever he learned from the experience. TWI got what they wanted and strengthened their position regarding their trademark rights. I’ll not rag on him for that, but I will point it out, if he tries to claim some sort of victory.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Since Long Gone was unwilling to answer these two questions, I will
1) What are the elements of trademark Infringement?
A. Someone has a valid trademark for specific goods and services that they sell
B. Someone else sells the same goods and services using the trademark holders trademark
C. There is enough customer confusion that the infringer's goods and services being sold are passed off as the trademark holder's goods and services
Example: The infringer sells blue jeans and puts Levies's trademark on those jeans which infringes on the trademark holder's rights.
2) Why are there laws against trademark infringement?
A. To protect the profits of the trademark owner
B. To protect the public from purchasing products or services that they thought were from the trademark holder's company but were not.
The Judge on my case previously ruled:
In HARLAND A. MACIA, III v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, 152 F. Supp. 2d 535; 2001, Vermont Federal Court: "... Unless and until Intuit uses the mark in the course of trade, to identify actual goods for sale or transport, it cannot be subject to suit for trademark infringement under § 1125(a). ...because Lanham Act was directed against false representations of goods in interstate commerce, motion to dismiss granted where no sales of goods in commerce took place...
The question then is, what goods and services are sold by The Path of Christ or ex-wayworld?
Answer: None which means no infringement
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
"On February 7, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that a "gripe site" devoted to complaints about a shopping center owner was afforded First Amendment protection for its use of trademarks to attract visitors to the website. Taubman Co. v. Webfeats, Nos. 01-2648/2725 (6th Cir. Feb. 7, 2003)."(Cited in 12 other cases)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Abigail
Pat,
Technically you may be correct, but in practice, one generally waits until discovery is completed, or at the very least mostly completed, before filing a motion for summary disposition.
Now, on the otherside of this and for what it is worth, I don't think you got spanked. You didn't file this lawsuit, TWI did. Therefore, it wasn't up to you to simply "drop it". In addition, as part of their Complaint, TWI was requesting you pay damages.
Legal matters/law suites often come down to a game of chicken. Most civil suites are settled before trial. However, prior to settlement there is a lot of research, discovery, and legal manuevering which ultimately allows both sides to have more room to negotiate.
Had you simply rolled over and tried to settle, they may very well have required damages be paid as part of the settlement. By holding your ground and filing a counter claim, you let them know it was going to cost them money to try and get money from you. You gave yourself room for negotiation.
I believe settling was a very wise move on your part and you did it in such a way that you didn't have to pay damages.
So, taking all of that into consideration, and considering you were handling this by and large on your own and without an attorney, I think you did very well.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Shellon
That's what I'm talkin 'bout~!
Simple terms. Thank you Abi.
And for the record, I am not raggin' on Pat.
It was made public in here, I'm one of the public, I wanted to understand.
Now I do.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Pat, I'm not going to rehash what we discussed months ago. The bottom line is this. You got a frank evaluation by a competent neutral evaluator of the legal merits of the dispute and promptly agreed to TWI's demands. You could have done that months ago or, better yet, never have wrongly used TWI's name to start with. Instead, you chose to waste a lot of time, effort, and money, all to no avail. That's fine by me, but I'm not going to congratulate you for it. I think you were dead wrong.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Link to comment
Share on other sites
LG
Pat, I often know more about your case than you seem to, because I know something about the law and legal process. You have demonstrated lack of understanding of rules of discovery and the concept of relevance regarding evidence. You've demonstrated ignorance of the jurisdiction of U.S. District Courts, in particular their original jurisdiction over matters of federal trademark law, including domain name disputes. You've even demonstrated ignorance that a U.S. District Court Judge is a lawyer and appointed by the President of the United States, rather than elected. Now whether you really are that ignorant and devoid of understanding, or you are intentionally spouting off things you know to be wrong, I don't know. What I do know is that you do continually spout off pure BS about a lot of things.
Now, regarding Early Neutral Evaluation, I don't claim to know the specifics of what went on at a meeting at which I was not present, but I do know what Early Neutral Evaluation is. Would you have me to believe that you and TWI presented briefs and oral presentations to the Evaluator, but did not get any feedback (frank evaluation) in return? Of course you did! That was the main purpose of the meeting. It is why it is called an evaluation.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
Abigail,
Thank you for your input! It helps make things easy to understand!
:)-->
***************
I'm Proud of Pat!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
Nope. Wrong again.
You may think you know more about proceedure than I do and you might be right. As far as trademark law however, I spent several hundred hours researching the subject and came to the same conclusions that several trademark attorneys did which I had consulted.And I really don't care how superior your legal knowledge is. I would like to have seen you deal with these guys and see how you would have faired.
You probably would have run crying at the first brief they submitted as you seem to believe all the Bull that TWI's lawyers spewed in their pleadings.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
As someone who's been ragging on Pat, even though the question wasn't addressed to me, I'll provide my answer.
1. Pat addressed me directly in the first post. I was practically invited to respond.
2. Pat is presenting this as a draw. This was no draw. If you're happy TWI spent money, I guess that's fine. It doesn't tickle me that they spent money that went to lawyers, but if it tickles you, that's your prerogative (thank you to those of you who answered my question on the subject). However, the fact that TWI paid its lawyers is hardly evidence that they were "spanked," which was Pat's allegation in the first place.
3. Pat continues to insist that this was not about the domain name, even though the lawsuit was settled as soon as the domain name was surrendered.
4. Pat did not get one legal victory out of this whole thing: the closest to a legal victory was that he did not have to pay TWI's legal bills (standard in most settlements). He couldn't pay those bills if he wanted to (and neither could I: I'm broke).
5. Long Gone and I have repeatedly been accused of "armchair lawyering," but people who cited laws and precedents in Pat's favor were faced with no such accusation. That's selective and wrong.
6. I believe this entire legal action was a distraction that cost Pat time and money, veering him away from the important and valuable work that he does on his web sites. Excultworld seeks to provide an important service (whether you agree with everything on there or not, the intentions are entirely noble). Money and time that Pat poured into this action could have been spent on improving the web site and reaching more people with the truth about TWI and other cults. I realize, fully, that this is Pat's decision to make, but if he didn't want feedback, he shouldn't have posted it on numerous threads on a message board. And if all he wanted was positive feedback, then he shouldn't have posted it on a board where people are known to speak their minds.
I've been told privately that I appear to be gloating in an egotistical manner. I can't fully disagree with that, and to the extent that it is true, I apologize to everyone, most specifically to Pat. I don't want to gloat. In my opinion both of these lawsuits were solid victories for TWI, costing them a relative pittance. This cost Pat a lot more than it cost TWI, so forgive me if I don't congratulate him for it. That's my honest opinion. If it's better that I shut up about it, fine. Just don't put the subject on a message board that invites comment (and if you DO put it on a message board, don't call me out on the opening post).
I would like to know, if someone wouldn't mind digging it out for me, where TWI ever requested (in its injunctions) that excultworld or any of Pat's other sites be shut down. I'll look for it too, but as it's a claim Pat has made on several occasions, I imagine it must be in TWI's requests somewhere.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
WhiteDove
Speaking of spanking
Link to comment
Share on other sites
CoolWaters
For the record...
I admitted to doing armchair lawyering when it was pointed out to me...
Link to comment
Share on other sites
pjroberge
TWI also never approached me to settle the matter until the Neutral Evaluator session. If the domain name was the only issue, TWI would not have spent so much time showing how the websites were "infringers" or asking for injunctive relief (shut down the websites).
In my case, the settlement came after both parties presented their cases and met with the arbitator privately. I did not make an offer to settle.
I firmly believed in my case and its merits, and was willing to go to trial if need be to prove the merits of my case. TWI knew I meant business and was not afraid or intimidated by them or their lawyers, and that shocked them I am sure. After all, I am a "cop-out" and supposed greasespot versus the mighty prevailing household...
In a very similar case, taubman v. webfeats, the taubman company demanded at the end as part of the penalties/punitive damages that the man's infringing websites be taken down for the infringement.
The court ordered the man to take down his websites. Hank who owns webfeats is a computer programmer and represented himself also. He appealed and the higher court's decision is below:
"On February 7, 2003, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit found that a "gripe site" devoted to complaints about a shopping center owner was afforded First Amendment protection for its use of trademarks to attract visitors to the website. Taubman Co. v. Webfeats, Nos. 01-2648/2725 (6th Cir. Feb. 7, 2003)."(Cited in 12 other cases)
The higher court reversed the lower court's injunction, and Hanks websites are back up and you can read about his case at: www.taubmansucks.com
Edited by pjrobergeLink to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
"Injunctive relief" does not mean "shut down the websites." That's fiction. Nothing in the lawsuit requests or demands that your sites be shut down.
AGAIN: The question of whether to go to federal court or the arbitration board has already been answered. Your refusal to acknowledge that answer does not negate that the answer has been offered and not refuted.
I'm glad you believed in your case and its merits. That and a $95 will get you a cup of coffee at Starbucks, double half caf. It's meaningless. Whether your case had merit or not would have been decided at a trial, but it never got that far. Be real, Pat, if you really wanted to take this to trial, you'd have done so. Who are you kidding? You settled because "they asked politely"? Please. That's not the reason and we all know it. You either couldn't afford to go forward (no shame there: just say so) or you didn't have the confidence in your case that you profess. If you believed in your case and had the will to see it through to trial, you'd have done it: you would not have surrendered the domain name no matter how they asked.
1. Neither Taubman nor Webfeats was TWI. The question was whether TWI sought to take down your web sites. Taubman v. Webfeats is irrelevant to that question. What one plaintiff seeks is not the same as what another plaintiff seeks. What did TWI seek? Cite the paragraph already.
2. More importantly, in Taubman v. Webfeats, the plaintiff sought, in your words, "that the man's infringing websites be taken down." Ex-cultworld was not the infringing website. thewayinternational.com was.
Look, Pat, you want to call what happened a victory for you? Fine, go ahead. You want to Pat yourself on the back for making TWI spend money? Feel free. That's your choice. But when push comes to shove, you won nothing on this; you wasted your time and took your energy away from a more worthy fight.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.