Add IMOD.com to Gleissner’s losses.
Another company with Michael Gleissner as director has lost a UDRP.
American Franchise Marketing Limited, which has the same address as many other Gleissner-affiliate companies, filed a UDRP against Qualcomm over the domain name IMOD.com.
The case is certainly a head-scratcher. If you type in imod.com you’ll be forwarded to a page on Qualcomm’s website that specifically discusses IMOD technology. Qualcomm apparently got the domain name when it acquired Iridigm Display Corporation.
Filing a UDRP against Qualcomm is a ballsy move, and doing so when the domain was clearly registered in good faith befuddles me.
The WIPO panelist determined that the respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and it wasn’t registered in bad faith. The panelist did not consider reverse domain name hijacking.
Andrea Paladini says
IMHO Mr Morton and the other lawyers are just wasting a lot of Michael Gleissner’s money … and enriching themselves by filing silly and useless UDRPs and lawsuits …
A reliable source told me that he’s in some way relocating from Singapore to Hong Kong, and my contact is leaving the company.
Steve says
@andrea
This is what I suspected.
Setting up hundreds of entities and filing hundreds of trademark applications, and countless UDRPs, and who knows what else.
Playing with “house money” and billing Daddy while he’s on remote locations in Asia, making thriller feature films with Asian models/actresses.
Singapore is very expensive these days. Gotta bill. Gotta bill. Or get outta town and gotta dance,
C.S. Watch says
This parasite’s business model is squarely built on one thing: the past mistakes of dim ‘trademark activist’ Panelists in the UDRP and the shameful reticence of their cronies to redress their friends’ embarrassingly incorrect jurisprudence.
1. The UDRP exists SOLELY to unburden the courts, and the vast majority of registrations are subject to US law.
2. It is a settled issue in US courts that the initial registration date passes to subsequent owners, “We see no basis in ACPA to conclude that a right that belongs to an initial registrant of a currently registered domain name is lost when that name is transferred to another owner.” This applies even if the URL is sold on the open market to an unrelated party, for bone simple reasons illustrated by the parasite at issue.
3. There is infinite redress for TM holders who do not fall under the UDRP’s protection—webhosts will deadhead a site at the first whiff of a TM gripe, registrars will reroute to their parking page in a flash if they’re given a TM excuse, and affiliate links from CJ, etc., are instantly routed to their own pockets with a phone call. Not to mention cease and desists and infringement suits. What a fatuous conceit on the part of those Panelists, that ‘we must bastardize the law.’
4. If you, as a Panelist, do not understand the underpinnings of the law nor the reason why a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ‘shall be made’ every time, then the correct course of action is to do some catch-up reading in your quiet time. The correct course of action is NOT to capitalize on the informal nature and dearth of accountability of your appointment and unleash an avalanche of property loss and legal expense just to cobble together some career relevance. Do your duty, or don’t pick up the phone.
Imagine the good people who are receiving domain demand letters from this reptile, under the aegis of flatly incorrect UDRP findings which are routinely jettisoned as soon as they reach the courts. We can’t begin to compass those losses. But we know who should be covering them.
John Berryhill says
Very well put at usual, CS.
On point 1, I would say that the “larger purpose” of the UDRP was to keep registrars and registries out of the line of fire of litigious trademark claimants. The ACPA was drafted in parallel with the UDRP, which is why it refers to the adoption of a “reasonable policy” by registrars to address trademark/domain conflicts as one of the elements of the registrar safe harbor. The ACPA and UDRP were effective within weeks of each other.
But the historical dynamic, and the reason for increased abuse of the UDRP is precisely as you have described. Frivolous UDRP complaints have practically been invited by misguided UDRP panelists.
Jimmy Hoffa says
I would like to let you know that for a non-native English-speaking person, your comments represent a truly fun-to-decrypt challenge. A challenge because you use a well above average vocabulary and many legal terms and a fun-to-decrypt one due to the fact that you always bring important info for the rest of us and you share thorough and well reasoned points of view. I’m talking to you, C.S. Watch, John Berryhill and Joseph Peterson. 🙂
Please accept a big “Thank You” from a simple person who just happens to own some personal domains, but very passionate about this domain. Ha, I even managed to make a pun. Well, I hope so.
Joseph Peterson says
Wouldn’t have guessed from that that English isn’t your 1st language.
Robert says
Mike made roughly $150M give or take when he sold his company to Amazon 15y ago. Looks like his greedy lawyers are about to make sure they’ll get their cut. I can only imagine the hours they bill him.
John Berryhill says
I’d be surprised Gleissner is actually unaware of what this clown operation has been doing.
John says
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aK9OgXRDXxs
Andrea Paladini says
I’m not sure either he’s unaware of that.
Trying to see what is the situation there …
John says
It doesn’t matter how intelligent someone is, Andrea, or how glamorous or successful (https://domainnamewire.com/2016/08/29/another-udrp-loss-gleissner-company/#comment-2240500). The most intelligent people around can also be the most stupid. And they often count on others being reluctant to believe what they’ve done. Which you appear to possibly be…
Andrea Paladini says
I’m not reluctant, I’m just giving (once) Michael Gleissner the benefit of the doubt.
We suggested them to fix that mess, hope they will understand one day.
John Berryhill says
Who is “we”?
Do you have a mouse in your pocket?
John Berryhill says
And… Moron & Associates are clearly still cranking away….
Word Mark THERESA
Goods and Services IC 025. US 022 039. G & S: Clothing; shoes; headgear; shirts; leather clothing; belts (clothing); furs (clothing); gloves (clothing); scarves; ties; hosiery; socks; slippers; beach shoes; skiing boots; sport shoes; underwear
Standard Characters Claimed
Filing Date August 29, 2016
Owner (APPLICANT) CKL Holdings N.V. naamloze vennootschap (nv) BELGIUM 12 Kaasrui Antwerpen BELGIUM 2000
Attorney of Record Jonathan Grant Morton
Steve says
Has anyone actually contacted Gleissner?
His websites haven’t been updated in a few years. On the web: lots of fotos of him with a bevy of models up until 2014 — then nothing.
“Search for Bigfoot” — biggest challenge: finding the whereabouts of Gleissner. Last seen in Cebu
Robert says
Word is that he is working on Nautical Angels II
Im case you missed part one:
https://www.amazon.com/Nautical-Angels-Janelle-Perzina/dp/B000V6C3RQ/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1334306248&sr=1-1
Steve says
Some crazy clips on YouTube from Gleissner’s recent films.
One with an Asian actress playing a dominatrix enslaving a character who looks like Gleissner, set on Cebu. The title is “S&M PhotoShoot”?
The uploader is BigFoot
This story is now in Batshite crazyworld
I’ll stick with news about domains
Steve says
Gleissner owns lots of websites including this one:
mick.com — showcasing his fotos of Asian models underwater
His exec assistant of many years, Sally, and who is the current contact person on many of his websites, left Bigfoot in 2014
Cherchez la femme & follow the money
MrVg says
They should buy my “wetfie” domain
Domainer says
He probably could have had a higher success rate if he didn’t go after large companies and also active websites.
Now, that his reputation has been tarnished, it will be more difficult to get away with attacking the easier domain owners that can not afford a team of lawyers.
I am sure the panelist are hearing about this new scam against domain owners. So, they might be more cautious about agreeing with the complainant and be embarrassed among their panelist peers.
Joseph Peterson says
“I am sure the panelist are hearing about this new scam against domain owners.”
I wouldn’t be so sure. UDRP panelists don’t seem to pay much attention to the domain industry … he said sardonically / ruefully.
John Berryhill says
Oh, you’d be surprised how some influential panelists manage to get email updates from an annoying but well informed attorney on an occasional basis.
Andrea Paladini says
Contacted him, but got no answer so far.
He was in CC in the last emails I sent to my contact at BigFoot Ventures in Singapore.
I guess he’s very busy these days … maybe also with girls? 🙂
Steve says
I’m not convinced Gleissner is aware of all that has been done by his legal eagles.
Somehow I believe he made a fortune, pre-dotcom bubble bust, and he ‘s been pursuing “passion projects” (no pun intended) in Asia, making movies with hot actresses/models.
He could be living on an isle outside the Philippines..
The filings make no sense.
The only ones profiting: the firms and persons making all these filings and that can bill whatever entity or trust that controls Gleissner’s monies.
I realize this is speculative. But why would a guy who identifies himself as a film-maker.director on linkedin and who has a fortune estimated between $150- $500 million USD engage in these kinds of filings? And the last UDRP loss was against Cisco,
Something is off here.
thelegendaryjp says
This would make a great movie but the end would have to reveal he has been dead all this time and a small but deeper voiced Asian escort had been pretending to be him and run his empire from an Island no one knew existed except McAfee who only stumbled upon it when trying to flee for something he didn’t do. And all the domain filings…just some wild pet monkeys who ran wild in the empty offices on the island.
Moral of the story, don’t let your pet Monkey learn office pro.
Now on a more serious note, people are weird.
Robert says
I found him:
Looks like he is callling himself “Mickmeister” these days and is working on some really powerful songs and music videos.
http://www.mickmeister.com/
http://youtu.be/16xpd7bDBnA
Robert says
The guy is clearly doing it right.
http://youtu.be/GJOfVgNphhA
John Berryhill says
Doing what right?
The shithead is grabbing onto live coral with his bare hand to hold himself underwater in that video. For those unfamiliar with coral – that kills it.
Andrea Paladini says
Agree on corals, you don’t have to touch them.
Plus chemicals contained in make up, sun lotions, etc damage them as well.
Acro says
This video contains content from Fashion One. It is not available in your country.
Sorry about that.
Andrea Paladini says
@John Berryhill
re: ” Who is “we”? Do you have a mouse in your pocket?”
Yes, it’s a rat, it’s Ratatouille … 😀
Stuart S says
In a couple of decades as a tradesman in film & tv, I’ve met many directors, producers, and production companies whose greatest (and often singular) talent seems to be their ability to take advantage of their own employees.
Often to pointless ends.
Self-hindering project management; terrible product that offers no entertainment value).
Zero rhyme. Zero reason. Pure self-absorption and grandiosity.
Gleissner’s film company’s reputation is whatever it is, of course. I’d never say that Gleissner or Bigfoot are that sort of ‘director’, producer, or company.
Maybe it’s a fantastic reputation.
But let’s just say it’s the worst.
I know good film people are staying away, OK?
Stuart S says
PS:
Some great quotes:
https://www.glassdoor.com/Overview/Working-at-Bigfoot-Entertainment-EI_IE228750.11,32.htm
“Cons
Horrible owner as others have said.
Will steal your pay. Not to mention the pay scale is beyond under normal for all parties minus the owner’s favorite “party people”.
Horrible things happen on campus and cops are paid off.
Nothing else to say but RUN away from working with bigfoot, It’s run by a Napoleon complex nazi.
Advice to Management
Quit.. you are the reasons the company fails at everything it touches.”
“Pros
Flexible dress code. I cant say anything nice for this company.
Cons
I am talking about its Singapore office.
Horrible company. Poor management skills. Bosses and most of the colleagues are mean and fake. They even time your toilet visit, and if you are undertime for 1 minute, your salary will b deducted accordingly. Dont even think they will compensate for your overtime.
Advice to Management
Dont treat people the way you hate being treated.”
“Cons
everything, Over worked underpaid, pay withheld for no reason. Evil over bearing owner.
Has no care for his employes and belittles locals working for the company.
Advice to Management
Consider stepping out of being owner/producer/director/screen writer and hire trustworthy people to start.”
Joseph Peterson says
Money makes monsters of petty vain men.
Stuart S says
Bigfoot used to have an office in Los Angeles, which is how I knew of them.
Interestingly, the building they rented was formerly the production headquarters of a guy who was said to be the most epicly asshole-ish director of the 80s/early90s. So asshole-ish, even, that the super-evil giant warlord-king bad guy in Ghostbusters II (1989) was said to be animated to look like him.