More UDRP hilarity.
Yesterday, I wrote about how an Australian company argued in a UDRP that the famous Backpack Girl was planted by the owner of Patricks.com because the complainant’s (a company called Patricks) CEO looked like Backpack Girl.
It was hilarious.
It gets even funnier.
Once the respondent’s attorney John Berryhill explained in the response that this stock photo was the default on hundreds of thousands (millions?) of parked pages, the complainant’s lawyer Jason R. Buratti wouldn’t let it go.
Instead, he did some research and made a stunning find: that the blonde Backpack Girl that looks a lot like Patricks CEO had been retired on parked pages at the time in question. So the respondent must have been targeting Patricks’ CEO!
Why did Buratti think this? He came across a satirical article on DomainGang saying that the original Backpack Girl was being replaced with a Hispanic woman.
In a supplemental filing (that wasn’t considered by the panel), Buratti wrote:
For all its history, the Response failed to inform us that “backpack girl” was decommissioned in 2012, when the “typically Hispanic” look of Jaunita Rodriguez (depicted in the margin) replaced Ms. Stellar. ((reference to DomainGang joke article omitted)). Surely, “backpack girl” Ms. Rodriguez does not look like Aimee; “backpack girl” Ms. Stellar does. See Complaint at 7 (showing Aimee’s 2012 picture). The disputed domain continued to display “backpack girl” Ms. Stellar but not Ms. Rodriguez (see, e.g., Annex 22 from July 5, 2013) – a domain Respondent does not even argue (nevermind prove) was actually parked during this time and did not select this image of Ms. Stellar (though his lawyer argues it is parked today). Once again, only one inference is supported by the facts: Respondent controlled the domain in around and after 2012, published Aimee’s likeness there, and targeted Complainant.
Oh man, we’ve got ourselves a Domain Dunce award winner here for sure.
You can get more details in a comment from Berryhill here.
Acro says
Always look for the “100% True” image at the end of an article 😉
Michael says
Except people that don’t know your site is satire and stumble across one article through search won’t know to look for the “100% True” image, or know that it’s absence means the story is made up. But I suspect this is by design 😉
John Berryhill says
I can see how it happened.
DomainGang ranks high on searches for Backpack Girl, because he has some of the best “100% True” articles about her.
I had used some of his “100% True” posts as exhibits to the Response.
So, Mr. Buratti, who was in kind of a rush since he thought he had a “deadline” to file a supplement and he had apparently promised his wife he wouldn’t work on their impending second honeymoon, didn’t quite understand how DomainGang works.
I didn’t bother with a reply other than to suggest he read the disclaimer at the site, which is why the case shows a “supplement” and an “amended supplement”.
Andrew Allemann says
I don’t like that DomainGang mixes fact with fiction, and I wouldn’t expect a random person that arrives on the blog to be able to tell the difference. But this is what surprises me: after the lawyer learned that this was the default image on parked domains, I can’t believe he didn’t drop the issue! Instead, he doubled down.
Acro says
We went through this argument in person during TRAFFIC 2010, Andrew. In fact, you’re – partially – the reason the “100% True” image exists.
These days, only 20% of stories are satire. A “random person” should head straight to the “About Us” page, or read the footer. Domainers, trolls excluded, know very well what the process entails.
Per John’s request I was prepared to testify in the UDRP procedure regarding the content being satire. Luckily, it wasn’t necessary as the Complainant’s lawyer retracted the thin straw they were grasping on.
Do you still own BackpackGirl .com ?
John Berryhill says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNLUS0o69wQ
Ned says
The gift that keeps on giving.
Whilst technically correct that it was an Australian company that argued the UDRP, to be fair it was their USA based attorney who did the arguing. 😉
Perfectname.com says
I hope he charged his client $1,000 to file the supplemental.
Acro says
As far as I know, the supplemental filing was retracted, based on communication between the lawyers. It isn’t part of the official UDRP document.
John Berryhill says
Here’s the thing about supplemental filings. The Panel is going to read them before deciding whether to “consider” them. Nothing is ever “retracted”.
I have seen many cases in which the Panel said “we didn’t consider the supplemental filing”, but then the decision includes facts and arguments that were made in the supplement. In this instance, it wasn’t wiorth replying since, as the Panel noted, the situation was “beyond obvious”.
Just because the dispute resolution providers don’t make the filings available, doesn’t stop anyone else from doing so. This one was just too funny not to share.
John says
And I still want to know the story behind the photo and who the model is. She is part of domain investing history. And so adorable…
ada says
It doesn’t changes that Domain Gang is the most worthless domain bog out there.
Acro says
Aw. I am sorry to hear that you’re so unhappy with 6,000 articles. I’ll cover domain blog trolls in a special edition. Let me know which email I can reach you at for an interview.
Garth says
Domain Gang is cool satire. Thumbs up here.