Comments

• johnpepin 01:11 pm 21-Jun-2013 This Complaint was DENIED . What never ceases to amaze me is how arrogant people wealthy people can be when they believe that simply because they have money they can walk over people when they wish. WELL THEY CANNOT . As for Allen & Overy the solicitors who acted for them, they were quite happy to put forward false evidence on the Complainants behalf.

• johnpepin 02:41 pm 21-Jun-2013 The Decision Summary left out 2 very crucial bits of evidence that I filed for the Respondent (1) I filed a copy of the Judgement of the German Appeals Court setting aside the UDRP decision Tiara Hotels & Resorts LLC v. John Pepin, WIPO Case No. D2009-0041 . I filed a German and English sealed copy but no mention is made of this FACT . (2) The Complainants acted in a very underhand way, and indeed filed evidence that was not true. One example is this. They stated that the 3rd Complainant had rights in 1 of the Names in question because they had allegedly carried out various acts in April 2009 , YET I carried out a search of Abu Dhabi companies and exhibited a copy of the Company Register showing that AL MAISAn (3rd complainant) had NOT even been formed until AUGUST 2010 (18 months later) .They could NOT therefore have carried out any acts in April 2009. Why no mention of that LIE ?. I understand that he was likely overwhelmed with evidence given that the Complainant filed a complaint and 23 exhibits and then 2 wekks later filed a "revised" Complaint and 23 revised exhibits. and THEN after my Response they filed a 10 page Supplemental evidence . Ridiculous that the complaint was not thrown out lock stock and barrel.

• johnpepin 02:41 pm 21-Jun-2013 The Decision Summary left out 2 very crucial bits of evidence that I filed for the Respondent (1) I filed a copy of the Judgement of the German Appeals Court setting aside the UDRP decision Tiara Hotels & Resorts LLC v. John Pepin, WIPO Case No. D2009-0041 . I filed a German and English sealed copy but no mention is made of this FACT . (2) The Complainants acted in a very underhand way, and indeed filed evidence that was not true. One example is this. They stated that the 3rd Complainant had rights in 1 of the Names in question because they had allegedly carried out various acts in April 2009 , YET I carried out a search of Abu Dhabi companies and exhibited a copy of the Company Register showing that AL MAISAn (3rd complainant) had NOT even been formed until AUGUST 2010 (18 months later) .They could NOT therefore have carried out any acts in April 2009. Why no mention of that LIE ?. I understand that he was likely overwhelmed with evidence given that the Complainant filed a complaint and 23 exhibits and then 2 wekks later filed a "revised" Complaint and 23 revised exhibits. and THEN after my Response they filed a 10 page Supplemental evidence . Ridiculous that the complaint was not thrown out lock stock and barrel.

• johnpepin 02:43 pm 21-Jun-2013 The Decision Summary left out 2 very crucial bits of evidence that I filed for the Respondent (1) I filed a copy of the Judgement of the German Appeals Court setting aside the UDRP decision Tiara Hotels & Resorts LLC v. John Pepin, WIPO Case No. D2009-0041 . I filed a German and English sealed copy but no mention is made of this FACT . (2) The Complainants acted in a very underhand way, and indeed filed evidence that was not true. One example is this. They stated that the 3rd Complainant had rights in 1 of the Names in question because they had allegedly carried out various acts in April 2009 , YET I carried out a search of Abu Dhabi companies and exhibited a copy of the Company Register showing that AL MAISAn (3rd complainant) had NOT even been formed until AUGUST 2010 (18 months later) .They could NOT therefore have carried out any acts in April 2009. Why no mention of that LIE ?. I understand that he was likely overwhelmed with evidence given that the Complainant filed a complaint and 23 exhibits and then 2 wekks later filed a "revised" Complaint and 23 revised exhibits. and THEN after my Response they filed a 10 page Supplemental evidence . Ridiculous that the complaint was not thrown out lock stock and barrel.

• johnpepin 01:33 am 22-Jun-2013 I should add to this that I do NOT blame the Panelist Torsten Bettinger for missing out from the written Decision some relevant points that I had included in evidence, such as I detail in my post above,he was clearly vastly overloaded with papers from both the Complainant who filed 2 x Complaints with 46 exhibits and then later on a 10 + Page & Exhibits Supplemental filing, and then from the Respondent 1 Response, then when realised few pages had been miss scanned sent a complete indexed Paper Bundle by Courier as a back up and make easier for Panelist.