Response filed in Verizon domain name lawsuit.
Two defendants in a lawsuit filed by Verizon alleging cybersquatting have responded to the suit.
Both The Producers, Inc., and Michael Gardner have responded to Verizon’s allegations that they registered domains related to Verizon trademarks. The somewhat bizarre case revolves around what DirectNIC does with domain names when they expire but are not yet deleted. Like most registrars, DirectNIC removes the registrant’s details from whois and places a parked page on the domain.
In their defenses, The Producers and Gardner didn’t say much, other than denying most of the allegations made by Verizon. They also have terse affirmative defenses, including that Verizon has “unclean hands”:
Some or all of Plaintiffs’ claims and/or remedies are barred in whole or in part by the doctrine of “unclean hands”.
This basically alleges that Verizon is engaging in some of the same behavior that it alleges the defendants have engaged in. Although the response doesn’t elaborate, this could be about Verizon’s practice of displaying a parked page to its ISP customers when they type in a domain name that doesn’t exist.
The defendants also claim estoppel, statute of limitations/laches, ACPA Immunity, Communications Decency Act immunity, actions permitted by contract (that defendants are permitted to operate a proxy registration service), failure to mitigate damages, and third-party liability (that third parties are liable to The Producers and Gardner for all or part of the Plaintiffs’ claims).
Abe says
how much are the lawyers charging for that, wasn’t easier to just ask how much are the domains selling for? Why not sue the registrar, icann, for providing the names?
Chris says
Wired.com: “Verizon: Our Spy Capabilities Would ‘Shock’, ‘Confuse’ Consumers”
Washington Times: Verizon Communications, the nation’s second-largest telecom company, told congressional investigators that it has provided customers’ telephone records to federal authorities in emergency cases without court orders hundreds of times since 2005.
I have no sympathy for Verizon. They’ve got dirt on both sides of their sandals.
Josh says
Emergency cases as in Homeland Security needed info? If so there aint no fightin that now a days.
Shorty says
Who says Josh? If you are a true American you fight these kinds of things.
This is where we came from….true fighters for libety and justice.
You might go to jail, but if you are a patriot you make your point along with the help of other patriots.
Chris says
Read: “Warrant less”
Just pay a little fee and get whatever information you want – all without a warrant.
Last time I checked, this was a country based on the rule of law.
Josh says
Let me play devils advocate a moment. You state ” warrant less ” but as far as I know the gov. (HS) doesnt need to play by the same rules, we ask you provide.
As for verizons role, they are not a company formed to do anything but make a profit, no patriotic acts expected. Furthermore when the Gov. asks Verizon for info as permited by XYZ and national security acts etc, who is Verizon to say no and take on that fight. I wouldnt expect anything less of a company but to throw the customer under the bus in such a circumstance. They do it all the time when it isnt even the gov. asking.
Chris says
@Josh: With due respect, are you an American?
Do you understand the role of our Constitution – and specifically the Bill of Rights?
These type of arguments I would expect from some of my UK acquaintances.
I use to work for a Telephone Company. The culture of privacy and security was tantamount. It’s not an excuse for these companies to roll over in order to increase contributory margin.
Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. -Ben Franklin
Josh says
I am Canadian with plenty of family in the US and while I can understand where you are coming from I tend to look at both sides.
As far as my understanding is the US has passed an act which allows it to do such things as this, wire tap, jail, search etc all in the name of fighting terrorism. If that is primarily true and each case would have varying factors of course, what is a company to do when uncle sam comes knocking?
tricolorro says
Andrew,
I have been your unofficial proof reader under a different name before so I continue under this name:
somewhat bazaar case
somewhat bizarre case
—
P.S. I am making so many mistakes in my spelling and math especially in off-line real life that it’s beginning to concern me.
Andrew Allemann says
@ tricolorro – thanks! fixed
John Berryhil says
Or indeed what is one to do when Verizon comes knocking:
http://www.sfreporter.com/santafe/blog-37-verizon-rep-threatens-to-blow-up-manrss-house-over.html
“Verizon Rep Threatens To Blow Up Man’s House Over Unpaid Bill”
It wasn’t even his bill.
I would just like Verizon to stop lying to me about putting me on their do not call list, since they pester me about every week since I discontinued their “service” three years ago (after lying to me about the service and overcharging for it)
Biscuit says
“Like most registrars, DirectNIC removes the registrant’s details from whois….”
Is this really true? If so, it’s an alarming development. Presumably the registrant is still able to renew the domain at this stage, and yet their details don’t appear in the WHOIS? Or is it after whatever renewal grace period the registrar allows?
John Berryhill says
“Is this really true? If so, it’s an alarming development.”
Here’s a really difficult legal question to chew on:
How long does a one-year contract last?
tricolorro says
“How long does a one-year contract last?”
That depends.
Is it leap year?