4 ms·
Don't agree with the humor and tact of this letter even though "it worked". "Shmucking" someone can backfire in many cases and cause a bigger problem. To be s
by larrys 13y ago
Don't agree with the humor and tact of this letter even though "it worked".
"Shmucking" someone can backfire in many cases and cause a bigger problem.
To be spiteful (I mean do we really know the mental state of the attorney writing the c and d?) maybe he would decide pro bono to file some action even knowing it might fail, on his own time, to defend his honor. Which this attorney would then have to defend pro bono.
The other thing with regard to the listed domains is as they always say "don't ask a question you don't know the answer to". They probably don't know whether the others have been approached or not. And it doesn't matter at this stage anyway. So what. Maybe he was the first one.
Lastly Kaplitt isn't known for expertise in either domain names or IP. If he was he would know that very often people with bogus claims are able to wrestle domains from people for bogus reasons.
Oh one last thing. In his letter he states that "ICANN rulings have held that..." (or something like that). ICANN doesn't issue "rulings" like that for this (.com). He is almost certainly referring to the UDRP cases not ICANN.
- alan_cx 13y agoI think the humor was there because the two lawyers graduated from he same place, perhaps knew or know of each other.
- Pitarou 13y agoI totally agree. It's great for entertainment value but further down the line, if there are other legal disagreements, this letter could come back to haunt.
- jelled 13y agoAgreed, I think he took it too far. I wouldn't want that letter to end up in front of a judge if this thing did end up in court.
- Tloewald 13y agoI don't think such letters have much weight in court except insofar as they might involve breaches of professional conduct. I assume the writer has something to back his claim of excessive property tax, so it seems pretty safe. It also seems like there's some history involved.
- radio4fan 13y ago> Don't agree with the humor and tact of this letter even though "it worked". Personally, in the UK, I would have written: "We refer you to the reply given in the case of Arkell v. Pressdram". The reply in question was "Fuck off". This is well-known in the UK amongst journalists, lawyers and people who follow media law. http://jackofkent.blogspot.com.es/2010/05/reply-given-in-arkell-v-pressdram.html http://jackofkent.blogspot.com.es/2010/05/reply-given-in-ark...
- DennisP 13y agoAn article that showed up here a few months ago, by someone who's been through a lot of stuff like this, argued that the more blustery the C&D, and the more impressive the legal firm sending it, the more rude and dismissive you should be in response. Generally, people go for impressive scary letters when they don't actually have a leg to stand on, so it's best to just make it obvious that it won't work. I have no way to evaluate that claim but it sounds like the tone of the response isn't likely to hurt you in front of a judge.