Is there a duty to protect expiration dates from being published?
I am considering adding ICANN to my next lawsuit for 'cybersquatting' or an intentional trademark violation. I plan to take a separate action against Network Solutions who was the registrar who initially violated my TM. The Curtis Neeley Foundation will have in its bylaws to continually seek that domain registry expiration dates be made private. Back-ordering a domain is prima facia evidence of a planned TM violation. What is ICANNs stance in regards to a domain expiring due to a owner's incapacity? This is the amendment or effect the Curtis Neeley Foundation will push for: No demonstrative intent to use a domain in commerce outside of third-party ad-serving within X weeks creates a liability for infringement and liability for a fine for the registry of a desired domain that a bona fide business owner now desires to use in commerce for a good or a service or as a vehicle for free speech. As of XX/XX/XXXX a use besides third-party ad serving will be required. A domain not used in commerce outside third-party ad serving will cause a liability for a TM violation regardless of the registration dates for the relevant TM. Publishing the expiration date of registry is evidence of a conspiracy to violate a TM if the owner of domain can show it was consistently used in commerce. A use in commerce outside of serving third-party ads will be required by law when we are done. hat is ICANN's stance in regards to a domain expiring due to a owner's incapacity? Domain expiration dates should not be publicly accessible and pubic disclosure be a registrar is evidence of a conspiracy to violate a TM. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am not a lawyer. I am a photographic artist. I am facing NameMedia in Federal Court Pro Se and was approved to proceed in forma pauperis. I was approved as a pauper and this will support the next related filing. NameMedia once cybersquatted Cargills.com Cargill.com is the singular TM. This use of the plural or possessive 'S' was not enough to trouble NameMedia. The fact that NameMedia was running ads that could be competitors ads was the reason they lost before a tribunal. I sued NameMedia for cybersquatting and intentionally inflicting emotional distress after their attorney, Erik Zilinek, considered my request and rejected it as insufficient. I can demonstrate an attempt to retrieve the TM. I believe my case will end righted in District Court. The ACPA's intent was to prevent people from making outrageous profits by registering domains and "warehousing" them and my lawsuit will end all businesses like NameMedia's in domain name speculation. That was the real intent of the ACPA anyway. This use of the plural or possessive 'S' was not enough to trouble NameMedia. The possessive S and NameMedia? Hmm Look at NameMedias.com now. It is a non-commercial free speech protest site. Erik Zilinek is their attorney and was looking at the massive closed thread about my lawsuit at NamePros earlier today. I saw ezilinek there at 4:31 CST. I am not settling for less than several million. I have asked for 10 million. I am also seeking to have the registrar who sold it originally added although their unintentional act may resolve better separately. I am not sure that ICANN is liable at all. Public disclosure of expiration dates is evidence of a conspiracy to commit cyberstalking. It is how businesses like NameMedia exists now. A badly needed amendment will soon require a good or a service to be provided outside of the service of serving potentially relevant ads to allow a domain to be registered. I will seek that no domain name registry expiration dates be published in the future. An actual first amendment use will also be allowed, but a proof of consistent editorial use by a person will be the duty of the registrant. I will also ask that Google be required to blacklist ad sites like NameMedia makes. If it requires adding Google as a co-conspirator, I will do it. The issue might need to be independent of trademarks but might also work as an ACPA amendment? An intent to use a domain in commerce or free-speech must be demonstrated prior to registry .A consistent demostative intent to use a domain in commerce or for free-speech must be demonstrated prior to registry. No demonstrative intent to use a domain in commerce outside of third-party ad-serving within X weeks creates a liability for infringement or liability for a fine for the prior registry of a desired domain that a commercial business owner now desires to use in commerce for a good or a service. Look at NameMedias.com now. It is a non-commercial free speech protest site. NameMedia Inc. felt confident enough to challenge Cargill, Inc. for Cargills.com before a UDRP. I once met with Disney to look into providing an online reservation service through SleepSpot.com it was going to generate millions in fees each year.I was going to work in concert with Disney. It is just a third-party advertisement cybersquat site now. SleepSpot.com I have several witnesses who will testify that I was certain SleepSpot.com would make me a millionaire from 2000. That would be about nine million by now. I would still have preferred to make it outside of court. Curtis J Neeley Jr.