Location: - Washington, District of Columbia, United States
IP Address:
Mckenna, Long & Aldridge (76.74.9.220)
Search Referral:
www.google.com — Varsity brands cheerleading antitrust
Entry Page:
www.proskauerrosesucks.com/
Exit Page:
www.proskauerrosesucks.com/
Monday, July 18, 2011
Sunday, July 17, 2011
Richard G. Lyon Concurs with WIPO Panel but Richard G. Lyon feels he must SLAM Investigative Blogger's Rights and Motives at the Same Time. Richard G. Lyon. Proskauer Rose - Crystal Cox WIPO Dispute
"
Part 1
Part 2
OPINION CONCURRING IN PART AND CONCURRING IN THE DECISION
Though I agree that the Complaint must be denied, I adhere to my oft-stated views that a criticism site even if entirely noncommercial does not confer upon a domain name holder a right or legitimate interest if the domain name consists solely of the complainant’s (and the target of the criticism) mark.
Those interested in the details of my reasoning may read, among other cases, Joseph Dello Russo M.D. v. Michelle Guillaumin, WIPO Case No. D2006-1627 (majority opinion), and Justice for Children v. R neetso / Robert W. O’Steen, WIPO Case No. D2004-0175.
Here the Domain Name and mark at issue do not match exactly, but the only difference exacerbates the likelihood of confusion on the part of Internet users by adding a description of Complainant and the services Complainant provides. On the reasoning of the cases cited above, Respondent should not be permitted to appropriate Complainant’s soapbox for her criticism of Complainant.
Those interested in the details of my reasoning may read, among other cases, Joseph Dello Russo M.D. v. Michelle Guillaumin, WIPO Case No. D2006-1627 (majority opinion), and Justice for Children v. R neetso / Robert W. O’Steen, WIPO Case No. D2004-0175.
Here the Domain Name and mark at issue do not match exactly, but the only difference exacerbates the likelihood of confusion on the part of Internet users by adding a description of Complainant and the services Complainant provides. On the reasoning of the cases cited above, Respondent should not be permitted to appropriate Complainant’s soapbox for her criticism of Complainant.
Resolution of that issue, however, is unnecessary in this proceeding, for in my view the Complaint must be denied on the other ground stated by the Panel.
Complainant and others are battling Respondent and others over a slew of domain names and assorted issues of tort law. The Response in this case lists some (perhaps all?) of the other individuals engaged in these other proceedings.
The Policy itself and Policy precedent do not permit consolidation of these other proceedings under the limited mandate of the Policy; even if consolidation were possible that would do nothing about the charges of defamation (and other torts) and countercharges of harassment (and other torts).
Decisions in this or any of the other Policy proceedings are subject to subsequent challenge in court, where the panels’ findings are not binding. Given the parties’ history, that may well happen here.
Complainant and others are battling Respondent and others over a slew of domain names and assorted issues of tort law. The Response in this case lists some (perhaps all?) of the other individuals engaged in these other proceedings.
The Policy itself and Policy precedent do not permit consolidation of these other proceedings under the limited mandate of the Policy; even if consolidation were possible that would do nothing about the charges of defamation (and other torts) and countercharges of harassment (and other torts).
Decisions in this or any of the other Policy proceedings are subject to subsequent challenge in court, where the panels’ findings are not binding. Given the parties’ history, that may well happen here.
Like the Panel, I think it better that all matters be addressed in a forum that has the jurisdiction and competence to do so than that the Policy be stretched, in a case that is not clearly cyber squatting, merely to give one party or the other an edge in the litigation that will inevitably follow. In these circumstances I stand with the panel in Rudy Rojas v. Gary Davis, WIPO Case No. D2004-1081: “a plague o’ both your houses.”
Richard G. Lyon
Panelist (concurring)
Panelist (concurring)
Date: June 30, 2011"
Source of Proskauer Rose Law Firm WIPO Dispute with Investigative Blogger Crystal L. Cox
“a plague o’ both your houses.” - Richard G. Lyon Say...
Hey Richard G. Lyon YOU don't get to Plague o' My House. I am not griping, not lying and not even making this stuff UP... I am "Reporting" the TRUE story of a One of the Worlds Largest Law Firms involved in a 13 Trillion Dollar Patent Theft
"Though I agree " Says Richard G. Lyon - WIPO Panel, Still Richard G. Lyon must give me a thrashing and assume my "agenda" and throw in the Two Cents of Richard G. Lyon, to, I suppose make sure Proskauer Rose Stays on Richard G. Lyon's good Side ~ Thing is Richard G. Lyon is talking out his ass pretty much as this is not a Free Speech Issue, this is FACT, this is REAL News about the Criminal Activity of a Major Law Firm Seemingly Protected by the Highest Courts.
Richard G. Lyon needs to read all the documents, billing, reports, legal documents, and listen to perjured depositions and then Richard G. Lyon - WIPO Panelist may want to rethink all this Trash Talk that makes Richard G. Lyon look clueless and makes Richard G. Lyon look in "Conspiracy" with Proskauer Rose Law Firm to Conceal the Truth in a 13 Trillion Dollar Federal RICO Lawsuit.
The "trademark" issue is Gibberish, Bullshit, Illusions and a Scam on the Public at Large as the Registrars Such as Godaddy make really big money selling Trademarks that you the Public end up Losing. Folks Like Proskauer Rose, Realtor, and other Trademarks most often win and before that they Bully Domainers, Domain Name Owners into releasing their domain names out of fear of Lawsuits - such as the National Association of Realtors did to Me, I lost thousands of Dollars in Domain names because I let them go to NAR, though I had built a brand on them and was a Broker Owner, Member of NAR ~
See you the "Public" are not "allowed" to own Trademarked Names, you can't use them to Make Money See.. so Intellectual Property Idiots such as NAR, bully you into letting go of your Domain Names, meanwhile companies lease names with "Realtor" in the Name and other people re-sell Realtor domain names, and yet I as a "Realtor" was not allowed to use the Name.
It is Smoke and mirrors see, as the Registrar such as Godaddy SHOULD have a Copyright Filter and YOU, we .. I should not be able to Purchase a Trademark Name.. but we can and they make money from it.. then we lose the name and they sell it on auction.. meanwhile Idiots like NAR are satisfied as long as you Joe PUBLIC are not using the name for Commercial Use, so you Park the Name at the Registrar where they the DOMAIN Name Registrar, makes millions from those names monthly with adds on the name from Google and Yahoo and other sources, so NAR lets the Registrar make the money but not the Smart, Web Savvy Domainer who had the brains to market and brand the Domain Name in the First Place and they call this FAIR, Impartial .. See WIPO is kind of full of Shit..
If the Registrar can sell the name, then why is the end user punished and then the Registrar gets to make money from adds.. There is a breakdown in the system and the Rich Get Richer and WIPO is NOT Neutral nor does WIPO have to prove to you that there is no Conflict of Interest when they decided the FATE of your Intellectual Property.
As in my case, I never was "allowed" to know why Dawn Osborne of the UK, reclused herself from the WIPO Panel on my case and why did Dawn Osborne do this so late in the complaint process? It was because I pressured them for a Conflict of Interest Disclosure which WIPO says of course the panel is not conflicted, yet hmmmm Proskauer Rose had a Conflict of Interest with Dawn Osborne that was NOT disclosed and I have a right to know what it is YET am denied this right..
SO We have Richard G. Lyon who does "agree" with the Panel, yet NOT.. See the Truth is the WIPO Panel Fears me Exposing the Truth, Fears Lawsuits, and so they just denied the Complaint Based on gibberish that makes no sense, based ON Supposed U.S. Constitutional Rights and Free Speech when the real issue here is conspiracy to hide the TRUTH about a 13 Trillion Dollar Federal RICO Lawsuit and the seeming Fact that the WIPO panel may have been in on this Conspiracy until I exposed this possibility and they bailed.
~~~
The Pompous Ass Richard G. Lyon says that my site are a target of the criticism - well this post is a Target of Criticism and i am critisizing Richard G. Lyon, as the blogs were and are Media exposing a story that exists and are not Targets to Criticize, this is UNFAIR To Say, do you Say this about the New York Times when they "Target" guys like Philip Falcone, or other large media when they write about stories TRUE or NOT .. is this a "target of the criticism " ?
Just because I am not as big as the New York Times or Wall Street Journal does not mean that my stories are rants, gripes or targets of criticism ? These are true stories and ya some of my opinion as an Investigative Blogger VERY educated on the Story.
Richard G. Lyon has no right to say the things he has and Richard G. Lyon is Flat OUT Wrong - Do your Homework, READ, Learn, Think and Make up your Own mind on the iViewit Stolen Technology Case of which should have nothing to do with this supposed "Trademark" issue - YET in fact has everything to do with it..
a bit of a Rant on this Issue.. Oh and 1+1=2 no matter your opinion on How I Look..
Part 1
Part 2
Saturday, July 16, 2011
Proskauer Rose Clients, Proskauer Rose Cases - Got a Tip ?
Proskauer Rose Clients (60)
Wells Fargo & Co. (10)
Church & Dwight Co Inc. (9)
Prudential (6)
Bank of America Corporation (6)
Sprint Nextel Corporation (6)
CSX Corporation (6)
Hess Corporation (5)
Honeywell International, Inc. (4)
MBIA Inc. (4)
Henry Schein, Inc. (3)
LivePerson, Inc. (2)
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (2)
Chevron Corporation (2)
Biovail Corporation (2)
United Parcel Service, Inc. (2)
Home Depot, Inc. (2)
NYSE Euronext (2)
Colgate-Palmolive Co. (2)
Eaton Corporation (1)
Foot Locker, Inc. (1)
Cognex Corporation (1)
Candela Corporation (1)
Analog Devices Inc. (1)
Saks Incorporated (1)
Suburban Propane Partners LP (1)
Progress Software Corporation (1)
MarketAxess Holdings, Inc. (1)
Gencorp Inc (1)
Kubota Corporation (1)
Staples, Inc. (1)
Goodrich Corporation (1)
State Street Corporation (1)
Sony Corporation (1)
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. (1)
Altria Group, Inc. (1)
Whole Foods Market, Inc. (1)
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (1)
Consolidated Edison Inc. (1)
Celgene Corporation (1)
CIT Group Inc. (1)
American International Group Inc (1)
Care Investment Trust Inc. (1)
Maidenform Brands, Inc. (1)
McDonald's Corporation (1)
Tech Data Corporation (1)
MetLife, Inc. (1)
Hitachi, Ltd. (1)
Alcatel-Lucent (1)
Hanesbrands Inc. (1)
Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. (1)
Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation (1)
Viacom Inc. (1)
The Knot, Inc. (1)
Satyam Computer Services Ltd. (1)
Reed Elsevier (1)
PPL Corporation (1)
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (1)
Discovery Communications, Inc (1)
Accenture plc (1)
New York Times Co. (1)
http://www.law360.com/firms/proskauer-rose/clients
Wells Fargo & Co. (10)
Church & Dwight Co Inc. (9)
Prudential (6)
Bank of America Corporation (6)
Sprint Nextel Corporation (6)
CSX Corporation (6)
Hess Corporation (5)
Honeywell International, Inc. (4)
MBIA Inc. (4)
Henry Schein, Inc. (3)
LivePerson, Inc. (2)
Bed Bath & Beyond Inc. (2)
Chevron Corporation (2)
Biovail Corporation (2)
United Parcel Service, Inc. (2)
Home Depot, Inc. (2)
NYSE Euronext (2)
Colgate-Palmolive Co. (2)
Eaton Corporation (1)
Foot Locker, Inc. (1)
Cognex Corporation (1)
Candela Corporation (1)
Analog Devices Inc. (1)
Saks Incorporated (1)
Suburban Propane Partners LP (1)
Progress Software Corporation (1)
MarketAxess Holdings, Inc. (1)
Gencorp Inc (1)
Kubota Corporation (1)
Staples, Inc. (1)
Goodrich Corporation (1)
State Street Corporation (1)
Sony Corporation (1)
Coca-Cola Enterprises, Inc. (1)
Altria Group, Inc. (1)
Whole Foods Market, Inc. (1)
Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. (1)
Consolidated Edison Inc. (1)
Celgene Corporation (1)
CIT Group Inc. (1)
American International Group Inc (1)
Care Investment Trust Inc. (1)
Maidenform Brands, Inc. (1)
McDonald's Corporation (1)
Tech Data Corporation (1)
MetLife, Inc. (1)
Hitachi, Ltd. (1)
Alcatel-Lucent (1)
Hanesbrands Inc. (1)
Oppenheimer Holdings Inc. (1)
Polo Ralph Lauren Corporation (1)
Viacom Inc. (1)
The Knot, Inc. (1)
Satyam Computer Services Ltd. (1)
Reed Elsevier (1)
PPL Corporation (1)
Kaiser Aluminum Corporation (1)
Discovery Communications, Inc (1)
Accenture plc (1)
New York Times Co. (1)
http://www.law360.com/firms/proskauer-rose/clients
Joseph Leccese, Proskauer Rose does nothing to "Clean Up" Proskauer Rose Law Firm, Why?
Proskauer Rose has been involved in a major scandal for over a Decade. The FBI, Department of Justice, SEC, Florida Supreme Court, Florida State Bar, New York Supreme Court, New York Bar and more have known about this massive fraud for over a decade.
Now the Solution that Proskauer Rose LLP has come up with in order to STOP the Truth from getting to shareholders and investigators is to take the domain names of an investigative blogger, me ~ Crystal L. Cox. Though I have done nothing but EXPOSE the TRUTH about Proskauer Rose Law Firm.
Proskauer Rose is named in SEC Complaint, what is Joseph Leccese, Proskauer Rose's new "Head Guy" doing to investigate this? The solution seems to be to try and intimidate an investigative blogger to cover up decades of secrets, crimes, scandals and cover ups of Proskauer Rose Law Firm.
When Joseph Leccese of Proskauer Rose should really take a look at ALL the documents, evidence of the iViewit Technologies Case, as there is proof on top of proof of Proskauer Rose Attorneys involvement and it is without a doubt a major Liability to Proskauer Rose.
There is no way to look at all the evidence against Proskauer Rose in the iViewit Stolen Technology case and to not see that Proskauer Rose attorneys are GUILTY. So why is Joseph Leccese of Proskauer Rose putting his career on the line as new "Head Guy" to support criminals that are now under his management ???
Taking the Domain Names of an Investigative Blogger will now STOP the Truth. There is too much evidence proving the Real Facts of the Stolen iViewit Technology and the Involvement of Proskauer Rose Law Firm.
Here are Some Links to Educate Joseph Leccese, Head Guy at Proskauer Rose Law Firm on the major liability of Proskauer Rose over the Stolen iViewit Technology, in which Joseph Leccese seems to have been lied about by Proskauer Rose attorneys involved such as Kenneth Rubenstein, Matthew Triggs and former Proskauer Rose Attorney Christopher C. Wheeler.
SEC Complaint Naming Proskauer Rose with Details as to what REALLY Happened
Proskauer Rose Liability information
Kenneth Rubenstein's Perjured Deposition
Proskauer Rose Crime Chart
Gregg Mashberg Knows of Fraud and the Connections to Whistleblower Cases
in High Courts of New York
Proskauer Rose Sued in Trillion Dollar Federal RICO Lawsuit over Iviewit Stolen Technology
Information on this Case related to a major Whistleblower Case out of New York
Proskauer Rose MPEG LA Lawyer Sued Over Patents
Lots of Documents, Videos and Information on the FACTS of the Case, should Joseph Leccese of Proskauer Rose take a good look at the real risk Proskauer Rose face over this 10 year plus case.
Other Links on Proskauer Rose involved in Major Technology Theft
There are over 1200 Documents Online, and massive prove in many federal agencies, federal courts, state bars and for some reason all are protecting Proskauer Rose Law Firm and NOT protecting the Rights of the United States Inventors which is a Constitutional Right. Proskauer Rose is NOT above the Law unless everyone ignores the blatant evidence that proves that Proskauer Rose did in FACT commit these crime and is liable without a doubt for a 13 Trillion Dollar technology theft.
Posted Here by
Investigative Blogger
Crystal L. Cox
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)