A number of companies owned my Michael Gleissner are filing questionable trademark applications, including ones that match domain names he doesn’t own.
Back in 2014, I wrote about the Trademark King. Trademark King was an Indiana business that attempted to trademark the domain names of famous companies, such as Twitter.com and Porsche.com.
It was a hair-brained attempt by someone who clearly didn’t understand how U.S. trademarks work.
Now there’s a similar situation, and it hits a bit closer to home.
I started to look into this when UDRPs were recently filed on seemingly generic or dictionary words, like Apollo.com and Zero.com. George Kirikos sent some interesting information to me about these bizarre cases, and it came to a fore again this week when a couple of UDRP decisions were published.
The Apollo.com UDRP was filed by Fashion One Television Limited and Zero.com was filed by CKL Holdings N.V., and both UDRPs were subsequently dropped.
Both companies list Michael Gleissner as Director. Gleissner is a frequent domain name buyer through his company Bigfoot.
CKL has two other UDRPs pending for domains. Two of Gleisnner’s other companies, American Franchise Marketing Limited and China Capital Brands Limited, have also filed UDRPs.
Bigfoot Ventures LLC lost two UDRPs that were published this week, which brought my attention back to this issue. The two UDRPs were for BubblingBeats.com and Slized.com. The panel in BubblingBeats.com considered reverse domain name hijacking, noting that Barefoot should have known that some of its arguments on “bare assertions” would fail. But the domain owner didn’t respond to the case, and the panelist didn’t find RDNH.
The panelist on Slized.com, however, found Bigfoot to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking. He said the complaint was “totally inadequate,” was “speculatively filed” and that the complainant misrepresented the nature of its use of the Slized mark.
According to the Slized.com UDRP decision, Bigfoot was represented by Morton & Associates LLP. Panelist Matthew Harris noted that Morton & Associates appears to have the same address as Bigfoot, and the LinkedIn profile for the attorney on that case was “In House Counsel for Bigfoot Entertainment”.
If you Google that term, you’ll find Roman Popov’s LinkedIn profile.
Does that name ring a bell? Look at the second entry on his LinkedIn profile:
Mr. Popov was one of the lawyers who represented Office Space Solutions in its egregious cybersquatting lawsuit against the domain name WorkBetter.com.
According to the LinkedIn profile, Popov joined Bigfoot in May of this year.
Another lawyer whose profile comes up on LinkedIn for this search is Jonathan Morton, who lists his position since June 2015 as General Counsel – Intellectual Property Attorney, CKL Brands LLC & Fashionone Inc. He notes that his role is to “Resolve intellectual property issues/disputes before USPTO, WIPO, OHIM, Benelux IPO, UK IPO, Hong Kong IPO, Singapore IPO & ICANN.”
Just what are all of these IP issues he’s taking care of? If you search for Morton’s name in the USPTO database, you’ll see that he has been very busy with trademark filings.
Among the applications he’s listed on:
- The Home Depot, filed on behalf of BNU Textiles Limited, claiming priority on a Pakistan trademark.
- Room, filed on behalf of HBH Finance Limited, claiming priority on a Benelux trademark.
- Breakfast, filed on behalf of Breakfast International Limited, claiming priority on a Benelux trademark.
- Enron, filed on behalf of Enron International Limited, claiming priority on a Benelux trademark
- US, filed on behalf of KPP Design Limited, claiming priority on a Benelux trademark
And then there are the domain names. Morton is the attorney of record for 65 trademark applications with .com in them. The full list is below, but here are some highlights:
- Broad.com, filed on behalf of Broad Partners Limited, claiming priority on a Benelux trademark. Broad.com is owned by Broad Air Conditioning Co. Ltd in China.
- Angle.com, filed on behalf of Angle International Limited, claiming priority on a Benelux trademark. Angle.com is owned by Digimedia.
- Seoul.com, filed on behalf of CKL Citymedia Limited, claiming priority on a Pakistan trademark. Seoul.com is owned by Andrew Lee.
- Antwerpen.com, filed on behalf of CKL Citymedia Limited, claiming priority on a Pakistan trademark. Antwerpen.com is owned by Nat Cohen.
All of the applications are linked to the same address in London (3rd Floor, 207 Regent Street). And UK government records for each of the companies show Michael Gleissner as a director. (There are many, many more companies with similar trademark applications, all with Gleissner listed as the officer.)
According to a blog post from last year, Gleissner is also trying to get some trademarks canceled through the Office for Harmonisation in the Internal Market (OHIM).
From the outside, it appears that Gleissner and his companies are trying to use trademarks and UDRPs to get their hands on domain names. The companies have filed three UDRPs that were later terminated and have lost at least three others. If nothing else, people who own domain names that match the trademark applications listed below should take note.
I reached out to Popov, Morton and Gleissner on August 17 via a combination of email and phone messages. I informed the receptionist at Bigfoot Headquarters that I was writing a story about trademarks that Gleissner’s companies have applied for, and I wanted to give him a chance to respond.
I heard back from Morton Wednesday evening and he requested that I email my questions. Among the questions I asked via email:
1. Why are these companies filing trademarks in the form of something.com when the TM applicants in some cases do not own the corresponding domain names?
2. Why are these companies filing UDRP complaints against domain names and then withdrawing them?
3. Do you plan to continue filing UDRPs in light of the recent reverse domain name hijacking decision?
Even though I told Morton I was publishing my story Thursday afternoon, he had not responded by Friday morning.
So, perhaps Domain Name Wire readers can speculate about the answers to these questions.
Below: complete list of domain name trademarks listing Morton as the attorney. There are many other trademarks that aren’t domain names. Keep in mind that Gleissner or his companies own some of these domains, but not all of them.
host.com insider.com cosu.com NITROGENE.COM SPONK.COM TELEKA.COM MICK.COM SEOUL.COM ANTWERPEN.COM JAKARTA.COM HONGKONG.COM MUNICH.COM KUALALUMPUR.COM SINGAPORE.COM TAIPEI.COM TOKYO.COM ziro.com tudy.com dego.com bert.com lemmon.com contor.com cacadoo.com broad.com angle.com sponk.com xero.com teleka.com broad.com PESOLA.COM REMINE.COM DANFI.COM VERNOLA.COM CURANI.COM TEVISI.COM DANOVA.COM SARDANI.COM SAMELE.COM FIDATI.COM RIDOLA.COM RONZANO.COM BELTRAMO.COM RESTINI.COM RASOLI.COM RANITO.COM POTERA.COM POLEMIO.COM PITEO.COM MORESE.COM MANUTO.COM LUPORI.COM LAVOPA.COM LAUDO.COM LAPESARA.COM GAUDIANI.COM FURINO.COM DENTUTO.COM DEMERICO.COM DELMATI.COM DANERO.COM CARRANTE.COM CARMONE.COM GALLONINI.COM CALABBRESE.COM CAMMERIERI.COM
The trademark filing I found most amusing was the one for MADOFF (although the one for ENRON came close)!
Andrew/George, curious how well you think a case like this would go for Bigfoot, may be what they are banking on.
-Bigfoot registeres a TM on XXXXXXX.com but does not own said domain
-A domainer (you or I) end up purchasing that domain AFTER Bigfoot has the registered TM
-As we know when a domain transfers ownership it resets the clock so tot speak making Bigfoots TM come before our ownership
Bigfoot monitors said domain and jumps on it, filing a case, who wins?
1. trademark rights accrue through usage in commerce. It’s unclear that these marks listed in the various trademark applications have ever been used. Indeed, why would an applicant advertise someone else’s domain name, to promote someone else’s goods, when a trademark is a “source identifier”?
2. trademarks don’t grant exclusivity over a term (unless they’re strong/famous fanciful marks; not the case here) — they apply to a specific geographic area, for a specific class of goods and service.
Statutory damages in the USA for reverse domain name hijacking are up to $100,000. DigiMedia already won such a case against Goforit Entertainment (reported on this very blog in 2011). I think it’ll be interesting to see how many of these domain owners assert RDNH, if provoked, and whether the courts would be inclined to “pierce the corporate veil” here. If the courts were prepared to pierce the corporate veil, those foreign shell companies would be of no help to Gleissner, and his own domain names (.com = jurisdiction of the USA, via VeriSign) might be put at risk to satisfy an adverse judgement against him.
I’m not a lawyer, but it’d be interesting to see whether a good one can make out a civil RICO case, if the appropriate facts presented themselves. If you do a Google search for “civil rico elements trademark” (without the quotes), trademark law is within the realm of that cause of action. Although, it’s much too complex an area of the law for me to determine whether a certain case could be made (it’s also very fact specific).
GoForIt entertainment received actual damages under 15 U.S.C. § 1114(2)(d)(iv) and not statutory damages under 15 U.S. Code § 1117(d). It just happened to be close to $100K. All the damages were legal fees so the money apparently went to the lawyers and not to the person who filed the complaint.
.scumbag
scumbag.com (TM)
All that has already being reported in details in my posts and by John Berryhill on DomainInvesting about the Zero.com and Apollo.com, on TheDomains.com and on OnlineDomain.com, including all the domain lists and other details.
This time you are late, nothing new under the sun … recycled news … 🙂
Michael is one of our clients, we were already talking to the guys in Singapore about all that epic mess, explaining them that’s a big mistake and a huge waste of money, prompting them to stop this and fix the whole situation.
Are you his PR guy now?
“Michael is one of our clients”
What services do you provide Andrea Paladini ?
Let the guy speak for himself. He knows best what he’s up to.
Hi JP,
We provide corporate and domain advisory services, you can find more details on my LinkedIn profile.
Thank you
“Michael is one of our clients”
Since when? And of what do your services consist?
When Elliot noticed the zero.com UDRP on his blog, you posted:
“I did a quick search and, as far as I can see, CKL Holdings N.V. is owned by Michael Gleissner, who is also a well-know domainer … weird, isn’t it?”
Now that was just a few weeks ago, and you were posting your own research results on Elliot’s blog, as if you didn’t know these people.
So, one of two things is true. Either (a) after seeing the post on Elliot’s blog, you have contacted these people and attempted to insinuate yourself into their affairs in the belief that they are now “your client” or (b) your initial performance at Elliot’s blog was Oscar-worthy.
Either way, please let us know the extent, if any, to which you speak for these folks, or the extent to which they have authorized you to identify them as your “client”. You can do it now, or you can do it when you get the subpoena after this wanker gets sued, and you are all over the internet going on about your communications with him.
John,
We are doing some domain brokerage for him, since February 2016.
We provide Corporate & Domain Advisory services, you can find more details on my LinkedIn profile, which you have checked 🙂
FYI, I’ve been in the financial industry since the 90s.
As regards CKL Holdings, I didn’t know Michael owned that company, that’s not part of the business we were doing with him at that time, so it was something new I found out about him.
As soon as I heard about the UDRP on Apollo.com and Zero.com I contacted the guys in Singapore to let them know that strategy was a big mistake and a huge waste of money.
As regards “you were posting your own research results on Elliot’s blog, as if you didn’t know these people. ” that’s maybe your (wrong) impression, your view reading that post.
I simply mentioned that Michael is also a well-known domainer, that does not mean I didn’t know him.
So both your a) and b) conclusions are wrong and baseless.
I’m not speaking on behalf of Michael Gleissner, never done that.
We are just trying to help them to fix a messy situation created by someone else.
They don’t need to “authorize” me to identify them as “one of our clients”, it’s a de facto situation, since we were already doing some brokerage business with them.
I’m neither a legal representative nor representing them in any way in this case, we are just trying to convince them to change their way of doing that business, as I mentioned above.
Frankly speaking, don’t get your harsh attitude and your sudden threatening me with that subpoena thing … for what?
No offense, but I would have expected a bit more professionalism and politeness from a respected attorney like you.
That said, I’m used to deal with lawyers, “sharks”, etc, so no worries. 🙂
“we were already doing some brokerage business with them.”
Translation: We spam people to buy and sell domain names.
Yeah, I get those emails too.
As regards brokerage I’ve written evidence of that as well.
We don’t spam anyone, not our style.
We never sent you any email regarding domains.
Unless you have proof of that, maybe you should avoid to make false assertions, and cut a poor figure …
I’m sure you know what Mark Twain said about those who speak just to keep their mouth open … 🙂
No offense, but from how you write, it looks you have something personal against us …
And, by the way, you haven’t prompted Jack.
Among their still-pending udrp’s is flammea.com, which is owned by a guy named Paul Flammea, and he has had it since two years prior to their claimed mark.
They are still fucking this guy over on a frivolous claim, while you keep making this stupid and false claim on the blogs that you helped them “see the light” or whatever such nonsense you are trying to peddle in order to make yourself feel important.
John,
I’ve contacted them about this mess after I heard from Elliot about the UDRPs on Apollo.com and Zero.com, we were not involved in this case before that date.
So my suggestions started from that date, but I’m not sure they are following my informal advice on the matter.
The fact that they terminated the UDRP on Apollo.com and Zero.com may probably be a sign of that, but I cannot guarantee that.
One of their response to my emails was “I understand, and I do think that will not happen again.” but I’m not sure they are following my advice.
As regards “you keep making this stupid and false claim on the blogs that you helped them “see the light” or whatever such nonsense you are trying to peddle in order to make yourself feel important.” we just contacted them to suggest them to fix that situation.
My claims are not fake, I keep all the emails I sent them, so your accusations are ridiculous and groundless.
I can send you a copy of them, anytime.
I’m used to keep documentary proof of everything in these cases.
Writing those details about this case on those blogs IMHO can let them understand they are doing the wrong thing, also impacting on their reputation in the domain industry, as I told them repeatedly.
I’m really surprised that such baseless conclusions can come from an experienced lawyer as you …
FYI, I don’t care about “making myself important”, that’s not my goal in life, we just try to be helpful in those kind of situations, in this specific case we have done so far for free, and I think it’s part of how we “live” and manage our job.
Maybe you should relax a bit.
Cheers.
So, let’s be clear about your “client” relationship here.
You sent them unsolicited advice via email, because you read some stuff on a blog, and you got back a one sentence reply.
That makes them your “client” in your imagination.
Then, you claim they are “fixing” it, when it is patently untrue that they are fixing anything. They didn’t want to get sued by Google or the people who own Apollo, and they settled those cases.
That you think your email had anything to do with their decision in that case, as opposed from what they got from Google’s legal counsel, is outstanding vanity.
They are not “fixing” jack, and have not terminated the frivolous filing on flammea.com. The only reason they terminated the other ones was because of pushback from the people they had filed against. But they think they can steamroller an individual, and your unsolicited “advice” to them means nothing.
I don’t care if you “keep all the emails I sent them”. You can send emails all day long to whomever you want. That doesn’t make you their advisor. So what? You sent them emails. You know, I once sent an email to my Senator asking him to vote for a particular bill, and he did. That does not make me an advisor, and I doubt it was my email that pushed him over the edge.
You are simply claiming some kind of “credit” for events that did not happen at your suggestion, and it’s bleedingly obvious.
When they got their asses kicked in correspondence from Google’s lawyers after they made the zero.com filing, you think they were sitting around wondering what to do until someone said, “Oh, hey, here’s an email from someone we never heard of. Let’s do what it says!”
C’mon.
John,
Your reconstruction of facts is completely false and IMHO also biased.
We have directly contacted them in Feb 2016 to see if they were interested in working with us on the brokerage side.
When we read from Elliot about the Apollo and Zero.com UDRP, we reached out to our contact to suggest them to avoid to go that way.
As regards the “emails I sent them”, they are full proof of what I’m saying, while yours are just fantasy reconstructions …
The one who’s playing with imagination here is you … maybe you should write a book instead of attacking people with no proof …
Your “senator” example is really out of place …
And I don’t do things for “vanity” … as I mentioned before, I clearly said that I was not sure they were considering my suggestions.
The reality here is that we have documentary evidence of what happened and who we contacted, while you are just spreading false, groundless accusations …
That’s really surprising from an attorney of your caliber …
Cheers.
I’m not his PR guy, we don’t provide PR services.
They also didn’t do anything at your suggestion. I don’t understand this act of yours, but Roman Popov made it very clear to me who is steering this sinking ship, and it sure as hell isn’t anyone you claim to have contacted.
John,
I’ve never talked to Mr Popov or any other of their lawyers, we just talked to the guys in Singapore, who are in contact with Michael.
I have email proof of that.
You sent unsolicited email to someone.
Don’t bother with the email. Just post the transaction number of the wire, or the check number of the check, by which they paid you for being their “client”.
You didn’t know these people from a hole in the ground until you read something on a blog and then sent them email.
They were threatened by Google and withdrew a UDRP filing, and now you are claiming they “took your advice” like the rooster who thinks he makes the sun come up.
We have contacted them as we normally do with all our corporate clients.
Emails make full proof of what I said, the rest is just hot air …
Emails are ok, but we don’t disclose any confidential data regarding our clients.
Being a lawyer, you should know that.
Your provocations are really childish …
Geez John you lawyers are such a buzzkill. What’s next? You’re going to tell us we shouldn’t hire Metal Tiger for .com advice?
Open season has begun. Think in terms only of profit and then don’t waste time or resources. The writer has uncanny wit with the subject and objects of domain names but it seem to me anything other than for purposes of branding and expanding brand worth and I P market values is off message.
I think you have one too many “t” ‘s in this . Morton & Associates LLP
This really should be used as the turning point for the ICA to lobby and get changes to stop the UDRP abuse and create consequences. However, nothing ever changes.
Who are “the guys in Singapore”?
Filing trademarks in Benelux sounds like getting property and water rights by putting the elderly owners in a nursing facility and becoming their beneficiaries, which was one of the plot devices of the movie, “Chinatown”
“She’s my sister” (slap) “She’s my daughter” (slap slap) “She’s my sister AND daughter” (slap slap slap) She’s my client.” (ahhh) She’s my CLIENT.”
“Who are ‘the guys in Singapore?'”
The answer may surprise you…..
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v69w4sJZP94
lol … sorry, but that’s not my type 😀
True, not as good as this: http://www.runstop.de/palvhs03small.jpg
Steve,
We reached out to our BigFoot contact in Singapore, a person who is charge with managing Michael’s domain portfolio.
“If they bring a knife to a fight, we bring a gun.”
And if they file a UDRP, we hire Mr. Berryhill.
Here’s another interesting branch. Long thread, read it all. https://www.namepros.com/threads/whois-emails-from-ryan-nextdomainbrokers-com.876945/
@John
As regards brokerage I’ve written evidence of that as well.
We don’t spam anyone, not our style.
We never sent you any email regarding domains.
Unless you have proof of that, maybe you should avoid to make false assertions, and cut a poor figure …
I’m sure you know what Mark Twain said about those who speak just to keep their mouth open …
No offense, but from how you write, it looks you have something personal against us …
“it looks you have something personal against us …”
I have no idea who you are. I’ve never met you that I can recall.
But you have repeatedly posted that you’ve somehow convinced Gleissner to stop doing this crap, and it is indisputable that he is not going to stop doing this crap.
He ran away with his tail between his legs when he realized he’d gone after Google, but he is certainly not withdrawing the case against Paul Flammea and flammea.com even though it’s the guy’s last name and he had it before the bogus trademark application was filed.
So it is obvious that either you are blowing smoke about persuading him not to do stupid stuff, or you are proving that your advice is not very persuasive.
I don’t have anything “personal” against people I don’t even know. What I do have something against is people saying things which are demonstrably not true.
John,
I don’t know you either, never met you.
As regards our advice to the guys at BigFoot maybe we have not been persuasive so far, but at least we have tried.
No offense, but as I’ve already said, the one who is gratuitously and repeatedly offending us and making false assertions and fantasy reconstructions about our contacts with them is you.
We have documentary email proof of all we said, so stop stating that we are saying “things which are demonstrably not true” … because repeating lies won’t make them become true … (that was Goebbels propaganda strategy …)
IMHO you should first learn to respect people, professionals who you don’t even know.
Secondly, sorry to disappoint you, but you are not the only professional who has corporate clients, maybe you should cool down a bit your ego.
Attacking me that way is totally rude, disrespectful, and a lack of professionalism and ethics.
Cheers.
P.S.
As concerns “people saying things which are demonstrably not true.”, that’s exactly you, since you didn’t provide any single documentary evidence of your accusations.
Let me recap:
You have accused me:
– of lying about and giving a false representation of the fact we are working with BigFoot on domain brokerage (“That makes them your “client” in your imagination.”), without providing ANY evidence of that, while we have all email communications which confirm that;
– of lying when I said that we have contacted BigFoot, after the Apollo and Zero.com UDRP, to inform that they were doing the wrong thing and suggest them appropriate corrective actions, without providing ANY evidence of that, while we have all our emails which make full proof of that;
– to be a spammer (your citation: ““we were already doing some brokerage business with them.” Translation: We spam people to buy and sell domain names.”), without providing ANY proof of that alleged spamming;
– of “making this stupid and false claim on the blogs that you helped them “see the light” or whatever such nonsense you are trying to peddle in order to make yourself feel important.”, without providing any evidence of that;
– of “sending them unsolicited advice via email”, without providing any single evidence of that;
– of getting to know the existence of BigFoot and Michael Gleissner when “you read something on a blog and then sent them email.”, without providing any single proof of that, while we started talking to them in Feb 2016, as proved by our emails.
Unfortunately for you, I’ve been in the financial industry for nearly 20 years, I don’t come from “a hole in the ground” and I don’t need to spam anyone to have my own corporate clients.
You don’t have provided any mere single evidence of your (false and offensive) claims and accusations against us.
That’s libelous and defamatory towards our professionalism and reputation, besides being particularly significant as it comes from a lawyer …
Either is your personal initiative, “personal bullying” or someone else or one of your clients/friends “hidden agenda”, if this happens again we’ll take appropriate legal actions to protect our reputation.
Nothing personal, but we are not going to tolerate any more unproven and groundless accusations.
Peace.
Cheers.
“The answer may surprise you…..”
The things guys will do for domain names these days.
The more negative coverage this story gets, the better.
Stories at DNW, OnlineDomain, and elsewhere help us coordinate in preparation for lawsuits against Michael Gleissner and perhaps even a mainstream PR campaign against his despicable thievery.
Furthermore, this glaring abuse exposes just how badly broken the UDRP policy is. With UDRP reform on the agenda, in a sense I’m glad this fool has offered himself up as a sacrificial lamb.
“Well the plot thickens, just like my gravy”. I am not as knowledgeable as all of you on the subject matter but let me relay my experience to you all.
A few weeks ago I discovered that an application had been made to remove my trademark “Oxygen” from the UK trade marks registry. The opponent filing this was one Fashion One Television Limited of 3rd floor, 207 Regent street, London. The director of the Company filing the application was Marco Notarnicola, resident in Singapore and describing his occupation as Sr. Paralegal (sounds like a solicitor who chases ambulances). The grounds for having my trademark revoked were that according to the best of their knowledge, the trademark had not been used on footwear (for which it had been registered for the period 2008-2016. As I have used the brand on footwear every day since it was registered, I notified the Registry that I would defend the case ( 200 pages of evidence to date of me trading ) and started to dig a little deeper.
Had Mr. Notarnicola done due dilliigence, he would have course seen that the brand had been used for footwear. Come on Marco google “Oxygen shoes” at least. Also why has Fashion One TV formed in November 2013, still dormant according companies house in November 2015.
One of the other directors of Fashion One Television is of course Michael Gleissner. He also happens to be the sole Director of Oxygen International Ltd formed in May, 2016 and registered at the same address as Fashion One TV. Oxygen International Limited applied on the 11th May, 2016 to have the trademark “Oxygen” registered in the UK. Of course I have notified the Trade marks registry that I intend to oppose this.
So I am now pretty concerned about this.If successful, these plonkers can stop me trading under my brand, so what are they up to? I check Mr. Gleissner out at Companies House. He is the Director of over 1100 companies in the UK (busy man I think), but on checking nearly all of these have been registered recently. I counted 117 appointments as Director in August, 2016. alone. Now if we assume he is forming these companies for the same purpose that he formed Oxygen International Limited, a lot of trademarks are potentially at risk. Also if we assume that Mr. Notaricola is one of the aforementioned guys in Singapore, then they did not take much notice of the advice Ms. Paladini claimed she gave.
As I said I am no expert and have found this whole exercise time consuming and stressful. As such would welcome any comments and advice.
Wow! Heavy stuff. If he is the director of over 1000 UK limiteds alone that were formed solely for the purpose of going after generic .com domains there certainly should be a criminal aspect to it.
Does anyone has a list of the UK limiteds where Michael Gleissner is listed as the director?
To be fair I did say we might assume he is using the new companies for that purpose. He could of course be opening lots of new businesses, plumbing, electrical etc etc.
Its easy to get a list of them. Go to Companies House at the link below and it lists all his directorships
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/UNzZqQbd_BaUf22RFVIO7ypHY_8/appointments
Thanks for sharing. This is interesting. Is your best domain oxygenshoes.co.uk or is there another domain he might go after? I’m not sure why he’s going through the expense of trying to get your mark canceled.
Hi Andrew, if he gets my trademark cancelled and registers his own he can stop me selling footwear branded Oxygen. The only domain I have is oxygenshoes.co.uk
According to the UK Trade Mark Act:-
– Any individual or entity (“applicant”) can file a cancellation due to non-use of any trademark that was registered for more than 5 years;
– No reason of ‘standing’ is required to do so;
– The applicant does not need to Google “oxygen shoes” before filing a revocation, because the burden of proof is on the owner of the trademark to prove that the trademark was used accordingly;
– If you would like to agree to settle the revocation action without an official decision you may do so by contacting the applicant;
– If you don’t, then stop complaining and be prepared to provide the kind of proof of use required, and in the manners established by the the Trade Mark Act. If this consists of 200 or 400 pages, that doesn’t matter: the applicant will respond accordingly and the Office will decide on the substance.
Thank you Anonymous for your less than helpful advice. I have already notified the registry of my defence and it will be submitted this week. Also the opposition to the trademark application by Oxygen International Limited. All of which of course will cost me a lot of time and money, which I dount very much if I will recoup even if costs are awarded. I suspect that few of Mr. Gleissners new companies have any assets..
Further I am not complaining, I am merely adding to discussion as to what Michael Gleissner is up to.
John Philpotts,
Thanks for sharing those details, very interesting.
Our contact in Singapore is not Mr Notarnicola, but I’ve recently noticed his profile on LinkedIn as one of the lawyers working for Michael Gleissner.
FYI, our contact in Singapore is not a legal guy, it’s a person in charge of managing Gleissner’s domain portfolio.
Agree with you, I think Mr Notarnicola, who describes himself as “Trademarks Manager at Bigfoot Entertainment Pte Ltd” is doing a big mess with those TMs …
You are right when you say that so far they “did not take much notice of the advice” we gave them, for which we keep all documentary evidence just in case.
We’ll contact them again in a few days to see if we can make some change happen …
BTW, I’m Mr Paladini, not Ms :), anyway no worries.
Guys – you really have tons of time to spare and do all this research. Please get a life.
If you really know half a thing about law instead of being concerned with frivolous legal matters such as these, then you would know that as long as everything is done within the boundaries of the law (e.g. UDRP, TM Acts, etc.), your headaches are just a massive waste of your time.
Go see a doctor.
Anonymous
It would appear to me that the aim of these discussions is to compare notes and knowledge of what has and is happening in this matter. By doing so we may find a small hole in Mr. Gleissner’s corporate veil. You are perfectly right in saying that what he is doing appears to be legal, however to me it is morally and ethically repugnant. Too many people throughout history have sat back and commented as you have. Too many fat cat solicitors have also aided these people in flouting the law. The law is not only there to be obeyed, it is also there to be changed.
For my part I can at least try and match his companies with his trade mark applications and warn people who have the same trade mark already registered to watch their backs.
As for any headaches I may get, I will take a paracetamol rather than waste a doctor’s time, but thanks for the advice.
Mr Anonymous,
Before judging people you don’t even know maybe you should introduce yourself with your real name, instead of using an anonymous nick …
Why are you hiding? scared of something? 🙂 … or maybe you are Mr Notarnicola? …
Andrew can we bet money this story is top topic of the week lol
I think you’re right…
JP, that’s a brand new can of worms. 🙂
Looks like he even is using typos of his own name to register companies in the UK for example ESS Partner Limited as Miichael Gleissner.
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/vJ5iIqU2FVGaJpY8dR5QftcefI4/appointments
Or Micahel Gleissner for XAS International Limited
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/yrjc9JW1Cn4CQMTuIIj67VBFi_c/appointments
Michae;L Gleissner of the PFO International. Looks like he is going after the 3 letter .com´s as well. Is anyone from the UK company house actually looking at the details that are provided??
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/NH7-u3NznKZDyVPT2MPaGLx8zYI/appointments
Here are a few more
https://beta.companieshouse.gov.uk/officers/NPk-X2noZDi-gjuCqb-Nr3O49TA/appointments
HBH Finance Ltd have applied to register the trademark room in the UK in classes 9,35 and 45, even though Benetton have it registered already in class 35
Robert, you are being realu unfair to Mr. Gleibner, he stays up all night filling in registration forms fo all these companies so of course he makes typos.
very sorry.. but I even found one with his name stated as Miiichael Gleissner..
poor guy must be so tired
I did a pretty basic search of Gleissner.
Appears he sold an online bookstore “telebuch” to Amazon for stock in 1998, which he cashed out in 2001 for a little over $300 million USD in proceeds.
Involved in several ventures: directing and producing “thriller” feature films for the Asian market(s) — starring Asian models/starlets
Mandarin Chinese language learning courses using Chinese models in “sexy” scenarios
Residences in Miami Beach, London, Hong Kong, Singapore, Cebu, and has citizenship in the Philippines
No idea what’s going on with the trademark & UDRP filings.
I know one of his friends. Apparently, Gleissners strategy is it to open fake shell companies (he buys real estate as well and uses them for his fake companies, even though nobody occupies the business) and buy as many domains as possible in order to sell them. It is all for profit as he knows domains are scarcity. He lives somewhere on Emerhald in Singapore
@Edie,
99.9% of DNW readers also “buy as many domains as possible in order to sell them” and understand “domains are a scarcity”.
Gleissner may do that. But he stands out – like a pimple – for other reasons.