General Discussions

**D-not** · 08-29-2007, 05:42 PM

Okay, and where in there did you offer any real counter evidence?
You never provided any reasonable doubt so ICANN fell back on the trademarks.

**CSS4Life** · 08-29-2007, 05:46 PM

Whether you have presented your information clearly or not, the fact remains that your site is very very similar to that of a large, well-known company across the pond from you. Your domain could easily be misleading their customers. It could be like that Mike Rowesoft case, but it's not - your domain is the exact same as theirs apart from it uses a different TLD extension - that alone is enough to be a trademark infringement

**myozspace** · 08-29-2007, 06:51 PM

LOL oh my goodness... just when you think you've read it all or seen it all... oh mannnn..... this was extremelyyyyyyy funny! Is ignorance really bliss? I think not..... :-)

**ADAM Web Design** · 08-30-2007, 02:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awt22

The usa owns canada don't they

Dude, you really know nothing about North American politics. If you said that to 100 Canadians, 99 of them would go on for about 3 hours telling you about how much America sucks and how stupid Americans are. There are even entire TV shows where Canadians make fun of American cultural ignorance.

So from that standpoint, you'd be more likely to get support from a Canadian. What does the fact that two of us have told you how stupid you're acting tell you now?

Quote:

[1] Williams-Sonoma, Inc. ("WSI") submits this additional submission in reply to Respondent Kurt Fees' response in this matter. Mr. Fees has been on a campaign to distort the record in this matter, and WSI thus must offer this reply.

My comments to this question:

WSI are on a campaign to distort the factual record in this matter, so i must reply in the fullest detail i can in order to resolve any issues they may have .
All the information they have provided is riddled with factual errors totally incorrect in parts and further based on assumption, the only 'campaign' i'm involved with with the web site 'potterybarn.org' is to create a online extension of my business and interests, which are to do with COLLECTABLE ENGLISH POTTERY , how the compliant can assume my motives are anything other than in good faith is beyond me, i have gone to great lengths in this matter to resolve all issues and disputes the complaint has raised or has issues with, even tho they slander both my character, web site and business and interests in order to meet the requirements of a case such as this. They have literally scared away many of my members and customers, business associates, business partners and even friends and family. I have had many emails saying ''there scared'' to just even create a account/comment in the community forums and even purchase collectable's online. I will only ever provide correct and verifiable information and try not to assume things as WSI seem to base there entire case on.

You mean like how "Pottery Barn Sextoys" and "findescort33@aol.com" are somehow related to the collectibles industry?

Last time I checked, people didn't collect double-headed feels-like-the-real-thing masturbators for a hobby...unless they're part of the lunatic fringe.

Quote:

[2] First, Respondent misrepresents that he never received WSI's November 10, 2006, demand letter; whereas Mr. Fees' own email correspondence clearly establishes that he received and responded initially to it in November 2006. Second, he misrepresents that he never demanded $10,000 for the infringing domain name, when his own email correspondence indisputably confirms that he did so. Third, Respondent made various changes to his web site after WSI filed its Complaint, in an apparent but unavailing attempt to better his legal position. He removed the "electronic goods" previously advertised, removed the links to adult web sites, and placed new ads for "collectable's." Under the Policy and other authorities, Respondent's changes to his web site cannot establish "legitimate" use or disprove bad faith, and are thus irrelevant. See Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy; see also Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Wallmarket Canada, D2000-01500 (WIPO, May 2, 2000).

My comments to this question:

I have explained in my pervious response, that i never received the demand letter they have used as a exhibit, some time in november 2006, i did receive contact from them and other parties well before this date, TRYING TO PURCHASE THE DOMAIN POTTERYBARN.ORG there was a extensive period of neogation before this point they claim to purchase the domain
In there own words from a telephone conversation after things broke down between us.
''We will just take you to a domain dispute process - it will be cheaper for us to get the domain from you that way - we have already done this many times before''
I have explained that i never received the demand letter in november 2006 to WSI themselves in late march 2007 , they told me the serving of this complaint includes this and is a legal document i must act upon, i have asked for them to resend the letter but they said that as it is included in this complaint they do not need to issue it to me, i would really like to get this letter as i have never read it, i have studied the exhibit they have provided and taken actions to resolve any issues that might be present

So during a telephone conversation, after which extensive negotiation for a domain you had no interest in selling and therefore never needed to take place broke down, they told you they would just go through the domain dispute process when they could have just done this in the first place and had a legitimate claim to the domain name.

Big companies in the US don't negotiate like that, especially when they're already aware of the domain dispute process. So your version of events isn't true there.

I'm not even bothering with the rest of this. If you're posting transcripts of actual court documents and you can't figure out why no one in the world is taking your side, you never will figure it out.

**CSS4Life** · 08-30-2007, 06:14 AM

I never noticed that part about the USA owning Canada - how idiotic can he be? Canada is a completely separate country to the USA:

Maybe you should do some basic research before making really stupid presumptions:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada

**Learning Newbie** · 08-30-2007, 01:57 PM

Well, unlike when he said Pottery Barn wrote a computer virus specific to infect his computer, I think he was half joking about the US owning Canada. But maybe not - this is the best ignorance festival I've ever seen.

**DaveMo~** · 09-03-2007, 11:45 PM

This thread is over and done. CLOSED! Webmaster-Talk, nor any of its staff, will be part of a legal dispute, if there even is one, and we'll not allow flaming (maybe racist) comments to be continued to be made. We have not supported one side or another. And this has gone far enough.

On this forum, when you attack a member, it's called flaming. It's also flaming when you generalize or stereotype a people, regardless of what country it may be. It's not only flaming, but borders on racism which will not be allowed.

For anyone and everyone, please do NOT start another thread like this or about this matter.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Dave