Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Legal response to Glenn Beck's attempt to crush a rumour

Legal response to Glenn Beck's attempt to crush a rumour

Ratings: (0)|Views: 948 |Likes:
Published by faceless
The legal response to attempts by Glenn Beck's legal team to shut down the website www.didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com
The legal response to attempts by Glenn Beck's legal team to shut down the website www.didglennbeckrapeandmurderayounggirlin1990.com

More info:

Published by: faceless on Sep 29, 2009
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





Mercury Radio Arts, Inc &Glenn Beck 
Disputed Domain Name:
glennbeckrapedandmurderedayounggirlin1990.comIsaac Eiland-Hall
(Rules, ¶ 5(b))On September 21, 2009, the Respondent received a Notification ofComplaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding from theWIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (
) by both email and faxinforming the Respondent that an administrative proceeding had beencommenced by the Complainant in accordance with the Uniform Policyfor Domain Name Dispute Resolution, adopted by the InternetCorporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (
) on August 26,1999 (the
), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute ResolutionPolicy, approved by ICANN on October 24, 1999 (the
UDRP Rules
), and theWIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute ResolutionPolicy (the
WIPO Supplemental UDRP Rules
). The Center set October 11,2009 as the date for the submission of a Response by the Respondent.The Respondent hereby responds to the statements and allegations inComplaint and respectfully requests the Panel to deny the remedyrequested by the Complainant.
Respondent’s Contact Details
(UDRP Rules,
5(b)(ii) and (iii))
For the purposes of the administrative proceeding, the Respondent’scontact details are as follows:Name:
Isaac Eiland-Hall
c/o Marc J. Randazza, Esquire
Telephone: 978-865-4101
 The Respondent’s authorized representative in this administrativeproceeding is:Marc J. Randazza, PAP.O. Box 5516Gloucester, Massachusetts 01930Tel: 978-865-4101Fax: 305-437-7662The Respondent’s preferred method of communications directed to theRespondent in the administrative proceeding is as follows:Electronic-only materialMethod: e-mailAddress:
 Marc John Randazza
 Material including hardcopyMethod:
P.O. Box 5516, Gloucester, MA 01930
 Fax: 305-437-7662Contact:
 Marc John Randazza
 The Parties stipulated on September 21, 2009 that unless required bytechnological limitations, that all communications should be transmittedelectronically between the parties and the Centre.
Response to Statements and Allegations Made in ComplaintThe Requested Relief Should be Denied
4(a), (b), (c); Rules,
I. Introduction
The Complaint fails for multiple reasons. The Complaint fails to establishrights as required by the UDRP. Even if the Panel accepts that theComplaint establishes these rights, the Respondent has legitimate rights tothe domain name.To evaluate this case, the Panel must understand the cultural, social, andpolitical background behind the Respondent’s website. Without thisknowledge, the Respondent’s selection of the domain name might seempuzzling, mean-spirited, and at first blush might seem to carry indicia of afalse accusation against the Complainant. However, none of this is true.The website is a legitimate criticism site, consists of political satire, and thusthe Respondent has legitimate rights in the domain name.Mr. Beck’s attempt to censor this criticism is improper and should berejected.
A. Why Are We Here? This is not a UDRP Issue.
The UDRP is not designed to resolve all Internet-related grievances. It isdesigned to handle a “relatively narrow class of cases of ‘abusiveregistrations.’” SeeSecond Staff Report on Implementation Documentsfor the UDRP ¶ 4.1(c).
 None of the factors in ¶ 4(b) of the UDRP apply. There is no evidence thatRespondent has registered and used the domain name for the purpose ofselling it for profit. Respondent is not engaged in a pattern ofcybersquatting. Respondent did not register the domain name to disruptthe business of a competitor, he registered it to pay homage to anexisting internet meme that poked fun at Glenn Beck, to poke fun atGlenn Beck directly, and to express his political opinions.There is no indication that the Respondent has intentionally attempted toconfuse anyone searching for Mr. Beck’s own website, nor that anyonewas unintentionally confused – even initially. Only an abject imbecile

Activity (4)

You've already reviewed this. Edit your review.
1 hundred reads
1 thousand reads
Jonny Simmonds liked this
aster111 liked this

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->