Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

  • Lawyer Marc Randazza sues detractor Crystal Cox in bizarre case

    1. BY - Nov 29, 2012
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 2 Comments

    Lawyer involved in domain disputes files his own cybersquatting lawsuit to protect his family’s names.

    Now this is a bizarre case.

    You may have heard of first amendment lawyer Marc Randazza before. He’s by all accounts a colorful character, and he was the one who represented the owner of glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.com against Glenn Beck in a UDRP.

    It sounds like at some point he caught the attention of “investigative blogger” Crystal Cox.

    In a lawsuit (pdf) filed yesterday in U.S. District Court in Nevada, Randazza alleges that Cox registered the domain name marcrandazza.com and then tried to extort money from him.

    Randazza alleges that when that failed, Cox registered the name of his wife, jenniferrandazza.com. She next registered the name of his (then) three-year-old daughter.

    According to the suit, Cox then offered “reputation management” services to Randazza to clean up search engine results related to Randazza. The plaintiffs allege these negative search engine results were created by Cox.

    The suit says this isn’t the first time Cox has followed this pattern. Check out the bizarre story of a lawsuit that caught mainstream attention (apparently for the wrong headline). Here’s another description of the events.

    Randazza is suing Cox for cybersquatting — and admits that this won’t necessarily stop Cox from ranting about Randazza:

    It is important to note that this lawsuit is not about defamation nor about Ms. Cox expressing her opinions. Cox has every right to express her opinions. However, she does not have the right to do so in a manner which is contrary to Title 15’s mandates, nor does she have the right to do so in a manner that is harassing or invasive. Cox posting her opinion on crystalcox.com is just fine. Posting on an obsessive number of continually expanding websites, created for the sole purpose of trying to crowd out any other opposing views, trying to make her ranting ubiquitous, is
    not. An off-line analogy would be Ms. Cox standing in front of Mr. Randazza’s office picketing the Plaintiff’s law firm. Plaintiffs would have no objection to her doing so. However, if Cox followed Mr. Randazza from work to home and his children from school to home and his wife from home to the grocery store and then stood outside Mr. Randazza’s house, banging a drum while protesting all day and all night, the law would look beyond the content and look at the time, place and manner of her activities, and certainly not find them to be protected or proper.

2 Comments

Leave a Reply