Comments

• URS Victim 02:51 am 26-Aug-2014 READDRESS OF FACTS. The determination is wrong. The rules say that the Respondent needs to have the intent (or profit from) unlawful action. Clearly I had no knowledge of the GoDaddy landing page, and even if I did, how is this not "an open question of fact, or contestable issues" or more involved legal scenarios? URS procedural rules have once again have been shoddily ignored. The Examiner is clearly not a neutral, and if not a neutral is a corrupt Examiner. I also noticed that Examiner in the determination conveniently edited out the names of UDRP panellist I hired the Hon Neil Brown QC, Johnathan Turner to help guide me through the process (whom say I'm acting within the rules) by incorrectly cut and pasting what I actually said in my response. This would have added credibility to my case, and the Examiner knew this so decided to edit the names out from public records. Examiner also conveniently edited what I said which was “US attorney’s Traverse Legal leading trademark attorneys have been instructed to file a law suit for declaratory judgement to protect our business from overreaching trademark attorneys” Again this would have added credibility to my case, and the Examiner knew this so decided to edit the names out from public records. It’s a Kangaroo court. With a Kangaroo Examiner. A judicial tribunal or assembly that blatantly disregards recognized standards of law or justice, who gives the appearance of a fair and just trial, even though the verdict has in reality already been decided before the trial has begun. The Examiners undersigned certification that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge is belied by its conflicting actions. CEO (Yoyo.Email Ltd)