From: Curtis Neeley Jr. [mailto:Plaintiff]
Sent: Tuesday, November 10, 2009 9:48 AM
To: X, Y; AdSense for Domains: Trademarks
Cc: legal@namejet.com
Subject: RE: Network Solutions Executive Office - SLEEPSPOT.COM [#535961205] Google AdSense for Domains Trademark Complaint
Ms x,
I understand ICANN's position and have spoken with ICANN already. Requiring that an expiration date be publicly available in a whois database is not a requirement to advertise or publish the expiration dates. Having a list of dates that are about to expire is not required by any stretch of the word publish. ICANN does NOT require that Network Solutions publish any of the information you alleged is required. I expect that you are not an attorney or an English instructor. I appreciate your empathy and hope to educate you in a way that you will not find offensive. You should involve either an attorney or a college level professor to assist you in determining your next reply. My brain damage erased most of my memories about my advanced degrees. I feel you should seek help in responding to this matter if you actually believed that Network Solutions was in any way mandated into committing the fraudulent violation of my personal data that I had associated with either of my TMs by ICANN. I believe you will find ICANN as surprised as I was that nobody has brought this type action already.
The fact that you were not the first to cybersquat on either of my domains by buying does very little to excuse a policy of advertising any domain that is about to expire. It only reduces the amount I have asked Network Solutions to pay for the cybersquatting they promoted. A business policy of promoting domains that will soon expire by using a transitive case of the verb expire to say they are expiring is fraudulent. The very second they expired; the intellectual property that they once were should no longer existed. Network Solutions’ calling them "expiring" is a violation of the rights of the © and TM owner.
Interesting to see you try to blame ICANN for your actions of copyright and trademark violating. Please read through the ICANN WHOIS page today as well as your registry agreement from the past and try to find a mandate to publish anything. I do not believe you will be able to STRETCH it into a permission to publish the times a domain will expire and there is definitely no mandate. The requirement that registry data be available in a publicly accessible whois search is what Network Solutions and the rest of the domain "industry" use to excuse their creation of a fraudulent value for any domain. Network Solutions then uses NameJet to perpetrate the fraud in cooperation with Google. Google then licenses any domain that is under ten characters and that contain general terms to be a part of Google "AdSense for Domains". This is an attempt to turn domain names into another search request. The domain "industry" is a complete fraud. It is not almost a fraud, but is a fraud to both advertisers and to consumers. It is a fraud that the Curtis Neeley Foundation is on a mission to end.
The fraud is like the old fraudulent teachings that the Earth was flat. If domain expiration dates were not disclosed, the masses would realize that no domain without a pre-existing business plan or business history is valuable at all. The search engines of Google and others are using these frauds well as propagating these frauds to earn advertiser income by turning domains into just an extension of searches terms.
I do not believe that I am so mentally challenged as to be the only person able to see the fraud that is now the HUGE Internet bubble that will burst when my lawsuit is resolved. I have not heard from Google today and expect that they feel they are too big to worry about a paralyzed and Pro Se plaintiff proceeding as a pauper. Google has less than forty-eight hours to notify me that they are willing to settle for ten million or greater for their portion of the actions violating my rights to the TMs that were used in the United States for commerce. They state that since the TMs consisted of general or descriptive terms they were "fair game" for AdSense. The jury will simply say this claim is NonSense and not AdSense. I see that they are currently still profiting from the cybersquatted site sleepspot.com and that it is still for sale. It will be my duty to add Google after Wednesday at COB. I already fired the warning shot across their bow.
I give Network solutions till COB 11/13/2009 5:00 PM CST to advise me of an intent to pay me greater than two million dollars.
Without receiving a two million dollar settlement offer by that time, I will proceed to both pursue Network Solutions and Google Inc for punitive damages. The sizes of the awards that will be rewarded by juries might help spawn support for tort reforms? Network Solutions and Google will be involved with me in court for the next decade. I was once not expected to live past 2012 due to my injuries. I now think I will live much longer. The most common cause of death for persons with my type injuries is suicide.
I would have added ICANN to the suit if I were unable to learn from them that they did NOT require the publishing of personal data that Network Solutions does now with NameJet. You can see that they tried to address expired domain recovery by following the link above. No business would EVER want to hide their registry data from a person searching for whois data. The fact that Network Solutions now uses NameJet to help propagate a profit from private registrations is evidence that I will use to bind Network Solutions tightly to Google as conspirators of NameMedias.com cybersquatting.
Consider this my ONLY nice offer.
I give Network solutions till COB 11/13/2009 5:00 PM CST to advise me of an intent to pay me greater than two million dollars.
To assist you in your apparent confusion about the ICANN requirement Network Solutions so fraudulently calls a mandate to publish, I will add links to the legal definition I see online. How can Network Solutions so blatantly call a requirement that a registrant be available in a WHOIS database an excuse for a violation of copyrights? I will proceed to sue NameMedia who took advantage of Network Solutions' violation of my right to make information about my copyrights publicly available.
I restate my DEMAND and try to be absolutely clear. I give Network solutions till COB 11/13/2009 5:00 PM CST to advise me of an intent to pay greater than two million dollars. 1,999,999.99 at that time will be an offer I consider only additionally distressing. Network Solutions makes money by creating a method of making the WHOIS database not really a WHOIS but a WHENIS. This is a fraudulent policy that I will seek to end. I include my previous email to Google to keep Network Solutions from feeling alone in being called a perpetrator of this fraud.
I include Google Inc. to let them see how serious this will be. Trying to license the address bar by licensing all typographical errors and errors where general and descriptive words were entered in the address bar instead of a Google search request.
Yes - I believe the lady Network Solutions and Google each hear singing is quite heavy. I do not think calling her fat is polite.
This will be published on my blog as an HTML tomorrow at 5 PM.
To further explain the ICANN's position I will make the fictitious fraud more obvious.
This is publicly accessible by anyone with the following URL who checks it with a HTTP request.
This is exactly as registry data is MANDATED to exist.
Tomorrow at COB I will publish it as loud as NameJet does a pending delete. Everyone following this will see it at NameMedias.com. FYI this is simply at http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/NameMedia/index.html.
|
Ms XY, does this help you understand the reality about what you so FRAUDULANTLY call an ICANN MANDATE better? My test jury did yesterday.
BCC: Curtis Neeley Foundation Board
Google AdSense for Domains: Trademarks,
I am confident about winning ten million dollars and an order for Google AdSense for Domains to cease their business policy of cybersquatting. This is in addition to the ten million I will also win from NameMedia and Network Solutions. Cybersquatting will be defined as licensing general or descriptive words as domains to simply run ads or words that are common typographical errors of a TM domain. Ten million is an exceptionally small amount. In a recent case in Arkansas, Google AdSense for Domains settled for seventy million and that was simply to prevent public education. The public impact of simply educating the commoners of the policies in place will ruin Google Inc.
I do not particularly care if you "investigate" my complaint. You have given me solid proof that Google is reckless in choosing who they will license a domain from. Thank you for doing that although I am sure it was inadvertently done and was not your intent. I would suggest you read over these filings [07CV3371]. I have read most of them. It was humorous to watch lawyers devote pages and pages to the words control and license.
The case number is linked to a case above that I believe you will find particularly relevant. It particularly addresses the court recently denying defendants' motions to dismiss certain of the infringement claims based on arguments that the domains were not being "used in commerce" and/or did not create the requisite "likelihood of confusion." Vulcan Golf, LLC v. Google, Inc., No. 07CV3371 (N.D. Ill, March 20, 2008). Just google 07CV3371, or use Yahoo, Inc, however, I used the word google in the previous sentence in its common linguistic verb use and not in a trademark use. I realize Google Inc, registered the word with USPTO. It has since become so common a word that it is no longer a solid ®. I did not earlier and will never capitalize google when using it so commonly. Spell check still suggested it as a capital. 'Nobles' are hard pressed to recognize us commoners?
Modern Language Association (MLA):"google." The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004. 06 Nov. 2009.
<Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/google>.
The uses of words above are linked to the online reference I cite. AdSense will soon learn that googling is a superb action verb we commoners enjoy. I recommend that Adsense "investigate" using it. The country you are currently in exists very much as a result of common people refusing to believe that rights were obtained by birth or by an ability to pay a filing fee. The document I refer to is online. I suggest that you google "We the people, in order" and even link it to save you typing. Google Inc. so hoped that their use of the noble USPTO would make a claim of trespassing on commoners TMs like mine more excusable.
There was a period in the USA where rights COULD be purchased. Even after declaring independence and fighting a war, it was not until a bloody civil war that equal rights were established for men by an Executive Order. No wonder he only got a penny. It was not till the next century in 1920 with the passage of the nineteenth amendment that women were allowed to vote. I wonder how often noble lawyers or noble judges consider that the racial equality of the commoner with respect to voting preceded the equality of the right of the female commoner to vote. It was still easier for a commoner in the United States to accept a black man as president than a beautiful white woman. Even in this century. Does anyone think we really need sixty more years to be led by a woman?
I hope Google Adsense for Domains legal staff enjoyed the preceding refresher on law. I only took one law course and have no memories of it. You might see the over-use of the term commoner. Common law trademarks have existed longer than the Lanham Act in 2002. I once suspected that I inadvertently used the circled R -®- with SleepSpot.com. I should have used © and TM although I was acting only as a commoner who did not realize only the wealthy could pay to use ®. The jury I demanded will be of commoners like me who probably will not understand that either. On further research I had displayed © and TM only. This was publicly available when Google Inc. first licensed eartheye.com and sleepspot.com. I copyrighted eartheye.com and sleepspot.com and they were marketed correctly in use for commerce several years before Google licensed them with NameMedia. I believe a jury will recognize this act as a pattern of fraudulent conduct to create billions in unjust enrichments. No juror will have a domain "portfolio" running AdSense for domains. Read that last sentence over and over and over. Hospitality.bet has been cybersquatted for over ten years. They look like Google ad license even today but they are disguised very well if they are from Google. A requirement that Google be named for ads they license will be demanded.
The next paragraph is linked to the noble USPTO government site. "Google AdSense for Domains" will not need to google to find it. I will help in your "investigation" and include as a link to the USPTO FAQ. Google Adsense for Domains is welcome to visit my BLOG and view it as HTML or as a signed PDF Wednesday. Email and HTML are easy to fake and will hold little weight as evidence. A signed PDF is much easier to validate although not impossible.
Federal registration is not required to establish rights in a trademark. Common law rights arise from actual use of a mark. Generally, the first to either use a mark in commerce or file an intent to use application with the Patent and Trademark Office has the ultimate right to use and registration
They are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. I planned to be a multi-millionaire with SleepSpot.com. I intended to quickly replace PriceLine.com® as the Internet destination to find a "Place to Sleep". I would not need Captain Kirk or any other celebrity. My marketing would make them embarrassed to pay so much. Read evidence of my first use in commerce in the United States in an Internet jurisdiction here as a webpage. I saved it as a PDF even though NameMedia can't hide this record. Better safe than having evidence hidden I have learned.
Google Adsense for Domains chose to entice NameMedia to violate my TMs. When they did this, I am sure Google Adsense for Domains used the description of common law trademarks like Google Adsense for Domains did in the reply where Google Adsense for Domains attempted to also extort common law TM research for free. Google Adsense for Domains should have performed a TM search before licensing either eartheye.com or sleepspot.com to run Google Adsense for Domains on. The internet Archive is a neutral party that had proof publicly available for free of the site and TM first being used in commerce in the USA. The USA is a country filled with commoners like the jury members will be. Until NameMedia placed a spider text on the root of the server that Google is licensing to hide the evidence they found publicly available. They were too late. You can see a PDF of the Internet Archives files that they have now hidden. This act was ANOTHER malicious act and was an additional copyright violation. Google Inc dba NameMedia are infringing on my copyright in addition to my TMs. The courts have already ruled that a request for an order that the spider text file be removed is reasonable. I have contacted the Internet Archive already. The files remain and will now be evidence of NameMedia's pattern of cybersquatting sites they then license these to Google Inc.
One needs only to research-"typo-squat" PriceLine.com to see Google licensing "cybersquatting sites" or ad sites like one from Oversee.net. The page is Pricelike.com. Being paralyzed and suffering a stroke requires that I type with one hand. 'K' is so close to 'N' on a keypad that I made the typo error and discovered a page that is making money for google running ads for competitors of Priceline.com. I see AdSense for Domains biting a hand that feeds it. This is a site licensed by Google AdSense for Domains to sell EXACTLY the same thing their own advertiser PriceLine.com is selling. I see PriceLine paying to be the SPONSORED result. A reasonable juror will see Google Adsense for Domains violating the ® of the large Google Inc. advertiser PriceLine.com at Pricelike.com. Can Google Adsense for Domains say Class Action? I can't do a Class Action Pro Se. I think Google Adsense for Domains should have already written off a settlement deal since Vulcan Golf only asked for one million. I originally asked for ten and even that feels trivial when I see Google actively cybersquatting their own advertisers. Priceline already demonstrates what they think of typo-cybersquatters with the following eighteen URLS that are aliased to their own site.
[pricelime.com, priveline.com, pricelinr.com, proceline.com, pricekine.com, prixline.com, pruceline.com, kriceline.com, piceline.com, pricelin.com, pricerline.com, prizeline.com, pricrine.com, pricelinw.com, pricekline.com, pricwline.com, priceline.net, priceline.org]
I am sure there are more but I wanted to quit finding cybersquatters licensed to Google.
1. http://www.oriceline.com is another zero width frame of http://usseek.com/search/internet/airline%20tickets This is another site licensed by Google AdSense for Domains to sell EXACTLY the same thing their own advertiser PriceLine.com is selling. To competitors!
2. http://www.lriceline.com/ is a site Google is licensing without requiring it hide in a frame. This is another site licensed by Google AdSense for Domains to sell EXACTLY the same thing their own advertiser PriceLine.com is selling.
3. http://www.pricesline.com/ is a site Google is licensing without requiring it hide in a frame. They are the closest thing to a non-TM-infringing cybersquat that I see because they run no air travel links.
4. http://www.priceslines.com/ is a site Google is licensing without requiring it hide in a frame. This is another site licensed by Google AdSense for Domains to sell EXACTLY the same thing their own advertiser PriceLine.com is selling.
5. http://www.preceline.com/ Is another ad site Google is licensing from SEDO. It does not advertise the same thing as priceline but it is licensed from a company that is already a Google co-Defendant in the [07CV3371] case already.
Six licensed Google ad pages or cybersquats found while looking around one registered TM.
This email took about thirteen hours to write. It was not a free TM search. HERE is a public proof that I was using SleepSpot in commerce that NameMedia can't hide with a robot text file on the server they are licensing to Google Inc. It is currently not on the IA site. When I was initially trying to settle out of court with NameMedia, I offered one domain name in trade. I offered to trade the domain ozarkphotos.net to them. I was told they wanted better than 2600 for eartheye.com. NameMedia recently requested $2,788 for sleepspot.com from me directly! See it first used in commerce in a PDF HERE, HERE or HERE with a © and TM displayed and dated 1999 or in the last century.10
I am confident about winning ten million dollars and an order for Google AdSense for Domains to cease their business policy of cybersquatting. This is addition to the ten million I will also win from NameMedia and network Solutions. Cybersquatting will be defined as licensing general or descriptive words simply as domains to run ads or words that are common typographical errors of a TM domain. Ten million is an exceptionally small amount. In a recent case in Arkansas Google AdSense for Domains settled for seventy million and that was simply to prevent public education. Every URL listed in this email is current as of 11/07/2009. I have saved them all as signed PDFs for use in my lawsuits.
This will not be published in my BLOG or my protest site online mentioning Google until Wed 11/18/2009. I will then contact PriceLine, Vulcan Golf and every other TM violating site I can find. You can find signed PDFs of SleepSpot.com as they were accessed from the internet Archive before Google and NameMedia hid them. My protest URL is www.NameMedias.com which is NOT a cybersquat like Google so often encourages. It is a bona fide first amendment expression that NameMedia is already aware of.
The three business days above will let Google's legal and executive staff have three business days to weigh settling out-of-court for ten million. I will sue and seek punitive and exemplary damages of one tenth of Google's net worth. One-hundredth of 154 billion is 1.5 billion. Unless I hear an offer of at least ten million by Wed 11/18/2009 at 1700 CST I will change nothing except the first letter and seek 10 Billion. Punitive damages must PUNISH.
I repeat ten million by 11/18/2009 1700:01 CST or I will demand ten billion for the malicious intentional act.
GOOGLE'S DISMISSAL OF MY COMPLAINT AND THE EXTORTION DEMAND FOR LEGAL ASSISTANCE WAS AN INTENTIONAL MALICIOUS ACT.
Google Inc. must not have even googled [+Sleepspot.com +"Curtis Neeley" +resevations] << I save you the typing.
A severely brain damaged pauper with no legs and who has had a hemispheric stroke and came closer to dying than nearly anyone in history is now suing Google for licensing NameMedia's cybersquatting of TWO TM'd domains Pro Se presenting to a JURY from a wheelchair is newsworthy?
This email is archived and saved as a PDF. You may view it in HTML at
http://www.CurtisNeeley.com/Googles-policy-of-cybersquatting/
One Pro Se pauper being awarded 10 billion in punitive damages for a malicious act will withstand the reviews of commoners.
Commoners might view it as a special tax because half of it will be paid as a tax.
Taxed commoners already have a lien on the settlement. They paid for the filing fees and service to NameMedia. They will serve Google and Network Solutions when I figure out how to amend and re-file the complaint. I will send this from several mail servers. My time is included by default. One second late is a decision. Compare it to "Deal or No Deal" after the button is pushed. 9.5 million offered by COB on 11/18/2009 will only ad to my distress. Ten million is less than one percent of Google and not nearly punitive.
Curtis J Neeley Jr, MFA
www.CurtisNeeley.com
as signed PDF
I have brochures used for commercial photography by 
