Wednesday, July 6, 2011

Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report: July 2011 - Domain Name Dispute Lawsuits


The facts are unproven allegations of the Plaintiff and all commentary is based upon the allegations, the truthfulness and accuracy of which are likely in dispute.


JON R. TOLLESFSON v. DEANN MARIE PLADSON
SOUTHEASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH DAKOTA
3:11-CV-00062
FILED: 6/27/2011

In my opinion it is a very sleazy tactic to attack the attorney representing an adverse party in a case. Here you have a classic example of someone who is attacking the messenger. I expect you might see a counterclaim for damages coming back in this case since in the UDRP proceeding an arbitrator cannot award damages but simply transfer the domain name.

Tollefson is a CPA and the Defendant is his wife’s attorney in his divorce. He allegedly purchased the attorney’s name as a domain name and then launched an extensive exposé pointing out how his wife’s attorney was unethical. A UDRP proceeding transferred the domain name to the attorney. This suit requests that the domain name not be transferred based on free speech grounds.

The lawsuit alleges reverse domain name hijacking and requests for a judgment affirming the Plaintiff’s rightful ownership in the domain name and injunctive relief against the enforcement of the previous UDRP decision. Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report Cross-Reference Number 1503.


LERAF, INC. d/b/a GRAFFLE, INC. v. OMNI DEVELOPMENT, INC. d/b/a THE OMNI GROUP
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS (CHICAGO)
1:11-CV-04323
FILED: 6/24/2011

There are plenty of ways to transfer a domain name or hold it in escrow. This method of allowing the seller to retain effective control of the domain name until payment is made in full is obviously not a good idea.

The Plaintiff purchased a domain name for its business but a prior registrant was to continue to serve as the administrative contact until all purchase funds had been transferred to the prior registrant. The prior registrant was served with a WIPO UDRP domain name dispute, didn’t tell the purchaser, lost the domain name, took the last payment and then told the purchaser that the domain name was no longer his to transfer.

Plaintiff requests a declaratory judgment from the Court that their registration and use of the domain name in question does not violate the Lanham Act or the UDRP and the cancellation of the Defendant’s trademark in the disputed mark. Graffle prays for preliminary and permanent injunctive relief preventing Omni from interfering with Graffle’s registration and/or use of the domain name along with attorneys’ fees and costs. Traverse Internet Law Federal Court Report Cross-Reference Number 1506.

2 comments:

1cfba4b4-a2d2-11e0-bf63-000bcdcb8a73 said...

Thank you for sharing this information.

Jon Tollefson said...

Hello Jon Tollefson is the Plaintiff in the Federal Case. Interestingly the anonymous commenter (we’ll call him Bob) attacks a website criticizing lawyer DeAnn Pladson calling her “the messenger” which is an inaccurate statement or conclusion. Bob fails to mention that DeAnn Pladson literally Stole to use for extortion, software Source Code valued by Deutsche Bank at $60 million which is a felony. Bob attacks Jon Tollefson… the victim of DeAnn Pladson’s theft and extortion. Bob’s the kind of person who would blame a rape victim for exercising Free Speech in criticizing her attacker.

Further Bob refers to a Magistrates recommendation simultaneously omitting that Jon Tollefson won the Federal case with pleadings from the American Civil Liberties Union and the Public Citizens Litigation Group parallel to the Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 where Lamparello kept a Gripe Site criticizing Jerry Falwell with free speech. Keep in mind that Jon Tollefson did NOT steel or extort assets from DeAnn Pladson. DeAnn Pladson stole corporate assets from Tollefson.