Traverse Internet Law Disclaimer
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.
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.
