Case No Domain(s) Complainant Respondent Ruleset Status
MySQL AB Giovanni Laporta / Yoyo.Email UDRP TRANSFERRED


  • Giovanni 02:15 am 12-Feb-2015

    “Let us first talk about email transport systems and Respondent’s business model. Simply put, Respondent’s model is nonsensical. Email does not travel from a single SMTP server to a single POP (or IMAP) server. There are a number of intermediate “hops”. There is no way Respondent can guarantee a message sent from its proprietary SMTP server actually arrives at a particular email address. This is due to the fact email receipts were never implemented uniformly and consistently throughout the internet. A genuine email receipt can (and does) prove receipt and opening. The lack of an email receipt does not prove non-receipt or non-opening. An email can be received but not opened (in which case, no receipt is sent). An email can be opened but the receipt cancelled before it is sent. An email will travel from server to server (in bits and pieces) trying to get to its destination. If a particular way is blocked, the local servers will try routing in a different direction until the email is actually delivered. The message is not returned to its original SMTP server before it tries to find a new route. This feature is a side effect of email’s original intended use, providing robust communications after a nuclear war when other forms of commutation would be disrupted (hence its creation by the United States’ Department of Defense’s Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency).

    So, this little bit of history means Respondent has knowingly lied to the Panel. That single fact will make it a little bit easier for Complainant to prove Respondent acted in bad faith”

    I have never read so much BS. How does what Lowry say make me a liar? All Lowry did was just identify all the problems why a solution needs to be found AND why the YOYO solution would work, in as much we control our own server to server email traffic, a technical solution which for some reason bypasses his tiny little mind. And I am the one that is nonsensical.

    We will see what the proper federal courts have to say. The Kangaroo court he thinks makes him important, in my world means nothing other than he is a Kangaroo jumping around playing judge.

    Giovanni Laporta
    (CEO) Ltd.
  • smlevy42 12:30 pm 17-Feb-2015
    Mr. Laporta still hasn't explained why he is going to such great lengths to hold on to his trademarked .email domains. Most entrepreneurs who are focussed on the bottom line would have moved on by now. The time, effort, and money he's spending on domains which he claims will never be seen by the public implies that he is, in reality, expecting some significant profit from these domains and a big return on his legal investment.
  • Giovanni Laporta 05:39 am 09-Mar-2015
    As usual Levy (smlevy42 the lawyer) misses my original point, in that, how does what Lowry say (the UDRP Panellist in the case) make me a liar? Evidently, Levy has no answer, instead proceeds with more side stepping and pointless questions my lawyers have answered a thousand times in detail.
    First let’s tackle Levy’s undertone.

    It’s not illegal to hold on to your property. It’s not illegal not to move on by now. It’s not illegal to spend time and effort. It’s not illegal to spend money on domains that may (or may not) be seen. It’s not illegal to expect to make money on a legal investment. But somehow you believe it is, or why else write it? You are looking for trouble when there is no trouble. You like to generalise which is the default to stimulate hours. It’s all about billable hours to you types of lawyers. Rack them up because people will pay, we operate in an emotive sector. Yeap, that’s what you lawyers do and I'm the one you say acts in bad faith. Do you really believe I’ve done something wrong? Does the evidence actually say it? It does if you twist it. Another thing you lawyers are good at.

    Comment 1. Why am I going to such great lengths to hold on to his domain names?

    One. I paid money for them. Two. Their mine. Three. I protect what’s mine. Four. I don’t like my property being taken from me. Five. It’s a natural reaction to protect your property. Five. Why the stupid question? If you took the time to think about it you actually answered your own question the moment you said “his” trademarked .email domains. People, kind of object when things are taken from them, this is why I go to great lengths. But you would like to believe otherwise and I guess you have too, its how you rack up the hours for the big cooperates to pay.

    Comment 2. Most entrepreneurs who are focussed on the bottom line would have moved on by now.

    One. You are obviously not an entrepreneur the naivety of the question tells me this. Two. What drives an entrepreneur is motivation not to walk away from resistance, especially the stupid or corrupt kind. You say no. We say **** you. Three. Entrepreneurs are nonconformist this is how we get our results. Four. An entrepreneur’s focus is not all about the bottom-line. Five. You don't know this entrepreneur, so generalising about entrepreneurs, don’t help your cause, besides I’m allowed to be different. Six. Believe or not I actually take a defence position after being called all over the internet a liar, a serial cybersquatter, a hijacker, nonsensical, a criminal and fraudster; just a few of the lies fabricated against me by impetuous Complainant trademark lawyers and UDRP Panellist in order to support an improper UDRP Complaint and dirty decision. Seven. Why another stupid comment? I’m sure you now understand why I haven’t “moved on by now.” Take another private moment to think, you simply can’t drive progress by accepting stupid wisdom like yours. So I won’t be contacting you for any advice.

    Comment 3. In reality, he’s expecting some significant profit from these domains and a big return on his legal investment?

    Absolutely. Levy, you are at least right on one thing. I am expecting some significant profits for providing a useful free service. However profits will be generated legally. I have never denied I want to make money, although, I have always denied money will come from any illegal trafficking in trademark domains names. Shame on me for wanting to make money in business, it’s an absurd idea which if it catches on would mean we’re living in a world that encourages capitalism and prosperity. It’s absurd isn’t. You do everything for free, right. Pot, kettle, black springs to mind. To be clear the certification service itself will always be free.

    Levy says “big return on his legal investment” emphasis on his choice of phrase “legal investment”. Was this a Freudian slip Levy? If it’s a legal investment then this suggests no problem. Do you even know what you are trying the say? If I had you in a room where I could defend myself, in person, I would eat you for breakfast. You are nothing but a lost soul thinking you are good at your job, but in reality, you’re not. You are a lost soul, right now, should be thinking I should engage by brain before making any comment on a public notice board about someone I do not know. The problem with you Levy (like many other lawyers) you do a lot of implying which leaves no more room in your tiny little brain for thinking anything else. You types of lawyers are like robots reading from academic scripts which don’t teach when to keep your mouth shut, but teach you well, how to be holier-than-thou pricks. Your limited knowledge is cute. Now run along and go play with the rest of the children and leave the adults to read on.

    What I think Levy means to stimulate debate on, is why, have I done what I have, and why haven’t I explained every nook and cranny of my product idea? (It’s worth noting. I have explained everything I needed too, not to have my property taken from me)

    For the benefit of neutral readers (and Levy’s obtuse nature) I will explain once again.

    Domain names (not trademarks) were registered as a useful way of naming, directing and certifying emails by technically linking two back-end email servers. This is explained in the Arizona lawsuit awarded in favour of Yoyo (me) signed by a federal judge. The use of the domain names as I have described is not trademark use or bad faith use. Yoyo uses words that happen to be trademarks for their non-trademark value. The service is not pretending be anything else other than a new certification email service operating in the new generic .email TLD space. My service does not compete in any way to services operated by MySQL. Nor do I wish to falsely claim and confuse consumers that MySQL has officially endorsed me and/or is affiliated to me officially. Nor do I wish to confuse the consumer as to the source and origin of any products offered by MySQL. The reality, is that, my service requires the exact opposite of all of the above for success as an independent service, free from external control or influence. Yoyo is the neutral party that sits between sender and receiver that primarily aims to reassure the sender (which happens to be the consumer) as proof the email has been sent, much like regular paper based mail courier services. It makes no sense to try and confuse anyone purposely or inadvertently. This simple fact is somewhat lost on UDRP Panellist and Complainant lawyers (one of them happens to be you Levy, footnote, lawsuit on its way). What is also lost, but to a greater degree, is that a well-argued federal lawsuit is tossed to one side (by both Panellist and Complainants) and replaced with inadmissible written evidence, assumptions and irrational conclusions. This is inexcusable and at the very least demonstrates lack of good judgment and/or extreme bias toward Complainants.

    For the sake of completeness and Levy’s curiosity I will now take on the subject of whether (or not) the public can see the domains. The initial idea is to launch the certification service as a closed software service which means system users can only send emails via my software, so, initially the service works as a back-end service where emails are directed and documented and then stored by our servers by name, domain names need not be shown to the public at this point, my email software initially masks them. However Yoyo domain names will be used to forward emails to the respective recipient (company) where domain names will be seen. At this point there can be no confusion as the recipient (company) cannot be confused as to who they are. Domain names need to be shown as email addresses to prove source (name only) and certification and not to confuse people like Panellist and Complainants need to think like to justify their stories about me. Furthermore. The certified email service at some point in the future “may” be extended so that consumers can send emails via any “open” email client software, such as Outlook, at this point domain names need to be seen because as users need to know who they would like to send their certified email to and we cannot mask domain names in other peoples software and before you think it Levy, the intention is to expand consumer choice not confuse consumers or infringe trademarks. Trademark, generally refers to a word that uniquely identifies a product or service. The fundamental concept and function of a trademark is to exclusively identify the commercial source or origin of products or services, so a trademark, properly called, indicates source or serves as a badge of origin. It is accepted, that if, this concept is tampered with then the law is broken. However I have not tampered with the concept. My certification service does not identify or pretend to identify the commercial source or origin of any MySQL products or services. Simply because we don’t sell any of MySQL products or services or similar products and services. My certification service uses the MySQL trademark in name only to indicate source (name only) and certification. Yoyo uses words that happen to be trademarks for their non-trademark value. Of course if Levy thinks this is wrong then it must be, he’s a lawyer and they’re never wrong.

    I will not be drawn into disclosing (for obvious reasons) proprietary knowhow on how certification is precisely accomplished on a public platform such as the UDRP. But more importantly I do not need too. I have explained enough which needed to be explained to establish legitimate fair use in line with policy guidelines and enough not to have my domain names (property) taken from. In any event its tacit knowledge, which means that it is difficult to transfer to another person by means of writing it down or verbalising it. The opposite of tacit knowledge, obviously, is knowledge.

    The difference between knowledge and belief (which is all UDRP Panellist and Complainants possess, as to date not a grain of evidence has ever been provided) is as follows: A belief is an internal thought or memory which exists only in one's mind. Most people accept for a belief to be knowledge it must be, at least, “true and justified”. Evidently, UDRP Panelists and Complainants know very little about knowledge, because if they did, they would know what is required, in that, “knowledge” true and justified not “belief” finds someone guilty. A world run by you numpties (the 50 or so Panelists, Complainants and you Levy) would have people found guilty just for being people, because your “belief” says people have the “ability to might do something bad”. Sounding familiar Levy? It should do. This is how all UDRP Panellist and Complainants make their bad faith findings against me. Just because something cannot be seen today it should not automatically make it bad faith tomorrow. It’s a far cry from might to do. Evidence should decide between the two.

    Now go find some evidence outside the belief system. Cue evidence. Oh yes that’s right there isn’t any. So let’s make it up and pretend Laporta acts in bad faith to protect the status quo and fix (contain) our little problem. If we all say it then he will be branded a cybersquatter and he will back away. Wrong. I’m willing and ready to take all necessary steps to prove Panellist deliberately suppress the rules to favour a personal view. The current procedural processes and those who run it, as it stands today, neither, is fit for purpose. The narrative is Panellist are hardwired to look for trouble even if there is none. They are inherently bias.

    You simply can’t drive progress by expecting conventional wisdom. I’m an ideas man and this appears to be bad for me.

    The system is riddled with gatekeepers prepared to twist the truth, others simple make facts up, and some deliberately lie and hide it behind what they call “interpretation” all in an effort to justify their dirty position, a position, which in reality is protecting the status quo not a position that applies the law (rules) correctly. Then there are the cut and paste puppets, UDRP Panelist (or their Clerks) that simply latch on to what other Panellist say (lies and all) and makes more false finding all because they want to maximise revenue and the easiest way to do this, is to not read the evidence for themselves and instead cut and paste someone else’s bad faith findings, to the point sometimes they cut and paste facts from another case, completely unrelated to mine. These people are intelligent (or at least supposed to be) do they think everyone else is too dumb to see the corruption which is the elephant in room?

    It seems neither UDRP Panellist nor Complainants need to provide any credible evidence in support of what the write and say about me, it appears just “fairy tales of bad faith” will serve its purpose. Bad faith findings have been nothing other than propaganda stories. A plethora of misleading facts used to promote a political cause or point of view. Both UDRP Examiners and Complainants have shown multiple times they have misunderstood the UDRP Policy which is not simply concerned with what the Complainant wants or even the viability of the my proposed email service but whether there was any bad faith intent at time of registration. Both UDRP Examiners and Complainants fail to provide credible evidence that supports policy requirements. Propaganda is conjured up instead.

    The reality is that Panelist, MySQL and their representatives know I have done anything wrong, simply because there is no evidence to suggest that I have. Matters have been blown way out of proportion for reasons which just do not stack up to scrutiny. The real reason can’t be because MySQL are concerned about their customers being confused as to “source and origin”, because Yoyo is not saying we are MySQL or promote in any way that MySQL is affiliated to Yoyo.Email.

    I'm an innovator and innovators by nature see things others cannot and maybe this is why Panellist and Complainants have failed to “grasp the point”, this, as well as Panellist and Complainants are hardwired to look for trouble that led them to the wrong conclusion. Panellist and Complainants keep getting a hold of the wrong end of the stick. They are actively looking for a bad finding, which blinds them from any possibility of the alternative in that domains names where in reality purchased in good faith guided strictly by policy rules. Other Panellist are deliberately blocking comprehension to effect a particular result.

    Some-way along the way the UDRP process, which originally started out with good intentions and was supposed to be a neutral process giving equal weight to all, has become severely corrupt. UDRP arbitrators are playing judge and jury. It has to stop.

    There is no independent body that oversees behaviour. This needs to change. UDRP Panellist (and Complainant lawyers) say and do whatever they want. Lie. Ignore evidence. Make evidence up. Don’t disclose all relevant evidence. Particularly to UDRP Panellist they can do this because the system gives them exemption from punishment and freedom from the injurious consequences of their actions. This impunity naturally encourages a culture of lazy arbitration or inherent bias arbitration or the worst kind orchestrated corrupt arbitration.

    ICANN should enforce their own strict set of guidelines. Current guidelines are continually being ignored to favour a personal view of the rules. Without consequence to keep people in line, people do whatever they want simply because they can get away with it. If a UDRP Panellist is suspected to be “manipulating the rules to effect a particular result” then any party involved (include ICANN and the Domain Registrar) should be allowed to sue a UDRP Panellist on grounds of professional negligence. Panellist are paid to do a professional line of work. So they should do it professionally. This will certainly help filter out some of the bias within the system and lazy adjudicating. Panellist will need to stop to think.

    There is evidence that UDRP Panellist are deliberately blocking comprehension to effect a particular result. UDRP Panelist, who in one role is a Complainant lawyer filing a UDRP complaint against me and the next day is a UDRP Panelist finding a UDRP case against me. Yeap. The lawyer cannot be neutral. It would not be so unfair to suggest that there is a “gang mentally” within the system. This gang mentality has the real potential to wrongfully prevent online innovation something which ICANN promotes heavily for the new gTLD program.

    I have had fifty or so UDRP cases go against me. Although this may be viewed by some as mounting evidence that can be used against me, when the reality finally surfaces that the whole process has become corrupt, it will serve up as mounting evidence of the serious malpractice which is currently playing out in a multimillion pound dirty arbitration industry. This wouldn’t be the first time the exploitation of a trusted process has been exposed.

    Panellist and Complainants might be winning the battles but not the war. The war will be decided in federal court where the rules of engagement will cut through the BS and when I’m found right and honest it will find, not one, but 50 so called neutral UDRP Panellist, wrong. It will serve as proof the system is fundamentally broke. I already have the website ready to expose the

    You are all just a bunch of money hungry pig-headed numpties.

    I apologise to the general reader for any choice of words said a little uncouthly. This is a general side effect of being a frustrated human that has been falsely called lair and had his property taken from him by a corrupt legal process that presents itself as justice. I hope you understand.

    Giovanni Laporta
    (CEO Yoyo.Email)

    END ******************
  • giovannilaporta 06:23 am 10-Mar-2015
    Further. I want to expel the “ unauthorized trademark use" bad faith myth...

    There is no unauthorized use of any trademark. For there to be an unauthorized use of a trademark I would have to falsely be offering (inc passing off) goods and services in particular commercial goods and services covered by the mark. I do not offer any of the MySQL commercial goods and services (and never have), in particular those covered by the mark. So, as a matter of fact and law it is impossible for there to be any unauthorised use simply because I am not engaging in a use (or registration) that requires authorisation. Therefore there can be no unauthorised use. Poignantly to my case I don’t need the authorisation from MySQL to call them by their own name. So, as a matter of law no authorization is required. For these reasons any allegation of bad faith or trademark infringement against Yoyo (me) is fundamentally flawed.

    Continuing to say or insist there is authorisation required to use a domain name just makes the person saying it someone that lacks good judgment, therefore should not be in a job that requires good judgment, (i.e. arbitrator).

Leave a comment

Log in or create an account