<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
[ga] Re: Mansfield Spam on a usenet newsgroup? - Parish the thought..??
Andrew and all Former DNSO GA members,
More than Happy to comply with your requests and answer your questions
below..
Andrew S. Mansfield wrote:
> John and all former DNSO GA members:
>
> Dr. Berryhill's analysis of trademark rights in the
> words WIPO, UDRP, etc. is ludicrous and demonstrates a
> lack of understanding concerning basic trademark
> principles. One of the main principles of trademark
> law is fair use and descriptive use. Hopefully, Dr.
> Berryhill is aware of the Estee Lauder line of
> caselaw.
I am not familiar with the Estee Lauder line of
caselaw that you suggest is relevant here.
Perhaps you have a reference? However you
are quite right the deceptive and "Fair" use
are two principals Trademark Law i.e.the
Lanham act in the US anyway. However
as you know or should know jurisdiction
of US Trademark law has boundaries and definite
limitations...
>
>
> The truth is:
>
> 1. I am an accredited and practicing WIPO UDRP
> panelist; and
> 2. Prior to the collapse of eResolution, I was an
> eResolution panelist; and
> 3. I currently represent private clients in UDRP
> proceedings whether they are before NAF or WIPO.
That's fine and dandy. No problem with that...
>
>
> I have an absolute right to describe extrinsic facts.
> Those are the facts. Trademark law is inapplicable.
> In fact, the thread is a rather interesting "red
> herring" and misapplication of law.
I personally agree with you here. However it doesn't
seem to be that you advertisement suggested that in
a direct way, hence why I said "I took" your advertisement as
misleading. I still think it does appear so, BTW...
>
>
> As to Mr. Williams' unprovoked invective, it seems his
> e-mail below published to a wide audience likely
> constitutes business defamation.
No invective stated, nor intended in anything I said in
my previous post... If you read the Subject line of this thread
as a any good lawyer would do, you would see the two
"?"'s ...
> To that end, I
> challenge Mr. Williams, whatever his credentials, to
> indicate what is "misinforming," what is "less than
> accurate," and what is "less than honest" in my former
> communication.
It is misleading as I indicated below in agreement with John
Berryhill's post to the UDRP Task force post which I
provided...
> I also ask Mr. Williams, if he stands
> behind his statements, to send me his physical address
> for service of process in case he cannot justify his
> statements.
I don't post personal addresses on a public Mailing list
Sir. As my own legal council has frequently and strongly
suggested. However you have my Phone #'s below,
Give me a call... If you still decide you wish to serve
me than I shall direct you to my personal legal council.
I am at this moment considering servicing you as well
for you remarks here, as well as forwarding the
information that John referenced to the proper state
atty.'s generals office as well as the ABA and/or
the California Bar Associations ethics committee...
I shall include this response as well...
As to your concerns. I said "I took note of Mr. Mansfield's rather
less than
accurate yet provocative as well as somewhat misinforming
"Advertisement" for his legal services for Domain Name holders at a
"Flat Fee"..." Which means that I got the impression, as it seems
John did as well, that your advertisement was a bit unusual or
less than accurate as to arbitration considerations... Therefore
I get the immediate impression that part of your advertisement was
seemingly "Less than Honest"...
Also, I stated below, "I acknowledge and support your chiding of
Andrew in
his rather less than honest advertisement on that Newsgroup.
Seems Andrew needs to brush up a bit regarding
arbitration considerations to properly represent his potential
clients..." Again I was referencing the E-Mail archived post
of John's in particular at the bottom of that post:
"I note for other enterprising panelists, that wipopanelist.com and
nafpanelist.com are currently available for registration.
John Berryhill
[1] I am unaware of administrative proceedings under the UDRP
having been
elevated to the legal status of arbitration's, and every court to
consider the
issue has expressly rejected applying principles of review of
arbitration
awards."
Hence, Andrew, why I put in the subject line, "Parish the
thought...??"
>
>
> What are the arbitration considerations I need to
> "brush up on?" Are you taking aim at the general fact
> that WIPO arbitrators can serve both as panelists and
> take private cases? Or is there something you think I
> personally am missing?
This was referenced directly in John's post. (See above).
"[1] I am unaware of administrative proceedings under the UDRP having
been
elevated to the legal status of arbitration's, and every court to
consider the
issue has expressly rejected applying principles of review of
arbitration
awards."
Also see WIPO PCT documentation...
>
>
> UDRP proceedings are arbitrations. That is basic.
Indeed true to an extent. But basic? They are setting themselves
up as a "Court" of sorts in particular with the UDRP decisions.
Very little if any real arbitration in the traditional sense actually
takes place, as I would think you know... As well as WIPO's
decisions are final unless either party wishes to file a legal action
after the fact, which you should also know, and I am sure you do.
Hence still perhaps leaving the original registrant in a position
of loosing their Domain Name unjustifiably such as the
Barcelona.com case as only one of a number examples.
> In
> almost all cases, as was discussed at the most recent
> gathering of WIPO arbitrators in Geneva and recorded
> in the proceedings, UDRP results are enforced in
> national courts.
Not always, no... But sometimes, yes...
>
>
> Finally, both serving as a panelist and representing
> clients in UDRP proceedings is NOT the practice of
> law.
How utterly true...
> One need not be licensed in any jurisdiction.
> It is not practicing within the jurisdiction of the
> State Bar of California. The advertising practices
> for that service are not, therefore, covered by that
> organization's rules. Even if they were, my conduct
> meets all requirements.
You may be correct here, I am not yet convinced of this.
>
>
> I believe having someone who has reviewed UDRP
> submissions and drafted decisions IS a major benefit
> to a UDRP party's case. Would not many people
> appreciate having a former judge in a Superior Court
> in California argue a case in his former court?
Depends on the background of that judge... Perhaps
yes. Perhaps no... But it sure SOUNDS good...
I personally would do a case review going back at
least seven years before I could make such a decision...
> It
> happens every day and fairness issues are not raised.
> It simply means that he understands the practices and
> procedures better than most of his fellow attorneys.
Perhaps yes here and perhaps no as well. I know a number
of Atty.'s that would not take a judgeship. Gerry Spence comes to
mind for instance...
>
>
> You might also like to know that the ABA is merely an
> advisory and member-services organization. It is not
> a regulatory body. Report away to the ABA.
True. But it does have and Ethics department
See:http://www.abanet.org/legresource/ethics.html
> And what
> the U.S. Senate thinks about UDRP rules and
> procedures, in my personal opinion, matters not at
> all.
I am sure that the senate judicial reform subcommittee will be
very interested in being advised of your considered opinion
here. I don't share it however..
Also I seems that the ABA doesn't exactly share this
particular opinion of yours either.
See:http://capwiz.com/bar/home/
>
>
> All of the opinions above are mine, of course, and not
> representative of WIPO.
>
> Andrew Mansfield
> http://www.mendolaw.com
>
> --- Jeff Williams <jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > John and all former DNSO GA members,
> >
> > In your recent post to the UDRP Task force list
> > John,
> > See:
> >
> http://www.dnso.org/clubpublic/nc-udrp/Arc00/msg00540.html
> > I took note of Mr Mansfield's rather less than
> > accurate yet
> > provocative as well as somewhat misinforming
> > "Advertisement"
> > for his legal services for Domain Name holders at a
> > "Flat Fee"...
> > I acknowledge and support your chiding of Andrew in
> > his
> > rather less than honest advertisement on that
> > Newsgroup.
> > Seems Andrew needs to brush up a bit regarding
> > arbitration
> > considerations to properly represent his potential
> > clients...
> >
> > I realize that the legal profession is under
> > increasing pressure
> > these days but seems that Andrew is reaching a bit
> > here.
> > I wonder if the ABA would be interested in this
> > errant
> > advertisement? Or the California Bar Association?
> > I am quite sure that the senate judiciary committee
> > would be interested...
> >
> > Regards,
> >
> > --
> > Jeffrey A. Williams
> > Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k
> > members/stakeholders strong!)
> >
> ================================================================
> > CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data
> > security
> > Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
> > E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
> > Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
> >
> >
> >
>
> =====
> Andrew S. Mansfield
> mansfield@pobox.com
Regards,
--
Jeffrey A. Williams
Spokesman for INEGroup LLA. - (Over 129k members/stakeholders strong!)
================================================================
CEO/DIR. Internet Network Eng. SR. Eng. Network data security
Information Network Eng. Group. INEG. INC.
E-Mail jwkckid1@ix.netcom.com
Contact Number: 214-244-4827 or 214-244-3801
--
This message was passed to you via the ga@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html
<<<
Chronological Index
>>> <<<
Thread Index
>>>
|