Trx.com owner’s attorney says plaintiff tried to gish gallop the court.
The defendants in a cybersquatting dispute have labeled the plaintiff’s arguments a “Gish Gallop” as they ask the court to award attorney’s fees.
A “gish gallop” is a rhetorical technique in a debate where the debater attempts to overwhelm his opponent by making an excessive number of arguments with no regard for the accuracy or strength of those arguments.
Indeed, the fact that both the judge and defendants have labeled much of the plaintiff’s arguments indecipherable makes this lay author feel better about not understanding many of those arguments.
If you’re new to this case (which the judge has already dismissed), you can catch up here.
The owner of trx.com argued for attorney’s fees, and the plaintiff’s attorney responded (pdf).
And, as with many of the plaintiff’s filings, I left thoroughly confused. Apparently, I had been gish galloped.
On Friday, the defendant’s attorney filed a response(pdf).
Now, it’s up to the judge to decide if attorney’s fees should be awarded.
The plaintiff has filed a notice of appeal for the case but hasn’t filed a brief with the appeals court.
John Berryhill says
“Indeed, the fact that both the judge and defendants have labeled much of the plaintiff’s arguments indecipherable makes this lay author feel better about not understanding many of those arguments.”
I got the impression that he may be suffering from some kind of neurological impairment of which he is not aware, or that he is taking some kind of mind-altering substance. His behavior from (a) falsely identifying the trademark owner in the underlying UDRP, to (b) denying knowledge that ownership had changed, despite having billed time as “special IP counsel” in the bankruptcy proceeding where the mark was sold, is really hard to understand in any rational way.
info4418f04ed39 says
In his Civil War reenactment club he portrays General Incompetence.