Manwin, Counter Defendant in State of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PA is Going after Manwin Sucks Site. Investigative Blogger Crystal Cox Alleges, this is in Criminal and Civil Conspiracy with Co-Conspirators and Counter Defendants of District of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL.
Central California 2:12-cv-02484-GW-SH
"LOS ANGELES — Manwin has filed court papers spelling out what the adult entertainment conglomerate is seeking in its suit against Nicholas Bulgin.
The company is demanding $400,000 in damages from Bulgin, described in court papers as a "professional cybersquatter," for violating its trademarks — the statutory maximum for four websites Bulgin allegedly registered (Manwin.net, Manwin.co, Brazzer.us and ManwinSucks.com).
Manwin, in its motion for a default judgment, also is asking for approval to transfer the domains at the heart of the suit. Currently, the company does not own Manwin.net, Manwin.co, Brazzer.us and ManwinSucks.com.
The requests to the court, which is slated to hear Manwin's default motion on Feb. 21, go further.
Manwin wants a permanent injunction requiring Bulgin to cease registering more Manwin variant websites, as well as Twitter accounts or blogs, and cease from disseminating statements falsely accusing Manwin reps or even its managing partner, Fabian Thylmann. It also seeks $11,600 in attorneys fees."
Source and Full Article
hey have you seen the TaubmanSucks.com Case?
This is the Exact Same Case Merits. They are using Trademark as the New Way to Suppress Free Speech, and you know who is behind it all. The Co-Conspirators and Counter Defendants of State of Nevada Case 2:12-cv-02040-GMN-PAL. Can you Say RICO?
These Guys are in Criminal and Civil Conspiracy. You have a Free Speech Right to Parody them, to have a Sucks Sites.
"Trademark use in a fictional work to describe or identify products or services. Some examples would be, "shopping for books at Walmart", "playing a Playstation game", and "wearing Oakley sunglasses." Trademark law allows an author of a non-fiction work to use trademarks in a way that is critical of the owner's products or services such as "rolling over in my Ford". In this situation, the author uses the trademark to describe Ford's vehicles and is careful not to confuse the reader as to the owner of the trademark. Ford has yet to file a trademark infringement lawsuit against the individual. Another website, fordreallysucks.com is a website that Ford heavily targeted to get removed from the Internet and as with many other corporations, FAILED MISERABLY to get it removed. Ford has seemingly given up on it, maybe they are finally more focused about their failing dynasty.
The above-referenced situations are considered non-confusing and "nominative use" based on the following requirements:
the owner's product and service cannot be easily identifiable without the use trademark
the author uses as little of the trademark as possible to identify the trademark owner's products or services the author does nothing that suggests to the reader sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner."
Research the Goldman Sachs V. Mike Morgan Case
"Sprint Nextel is run by Dan Hesse. Sprint gouged Allen Harkleroad's company for tens of thousands of dollars for dedicated Internet connectivity. Sprint refused to rectify the situation and ignored Mr. Harkleroad's attempts to settle the matter. Sprint-Really-Sucks.com was started to give people a place to vent their frustration with Sprint. Sprint has not filed a SLAPP against Harkleroad, because they know they would be wasting the money they ripped Harkleroad off for. Allan's redesign of the Sprint logo with the transparent word of SUCKS on top of it was absolutely brilliant and fully protected under trademark law. He could have gone one step further by adding a rubber stamp just above the 'sucks' to show his seal of approval.
Sprint also has been harshly criticized on a website that is looking for authorized dealers to bring a class action lawsuit against Nextel."
"Sucks.com: An Example of the Difficulties in Applying Trademark Law to Domain Name Disputes"
Also Nicholas Bulgin, and BULLIED Defendants such as Nicholas Bulgin, Note This:
Your First Amendment Rights MUST Be Adjudicated Before they Can Seize a Domain Name or your Content.
"If a court issues an injunction prior to adjudicating the First Amendment Protection of the speech at issue, the injunction cannot pass constitutional muster."
If your Domain Names, Sites are SEIZED before the First Amendment is Adjudicated or Considered a Factor in the case and thereby "expressly skipping the essential step of adjudicating the First Amendment protections to the speech at issue.", then this is a violation of law and constitutional rights. FIGHT BACK.
Manwin is a Public Figure. (New York Times Vs. Sullivan). You have a right to a Gripe Site, Parody Site, Review Site, Sucks Site, Satire Blog / Site.
A Judicial Order that prevents free speech from occurring is unlawful. ( Erwin Chemerinsky, Constitutional Law; Principles and Policies 918 (2002) ( “The Clearest definition of prior restraint is.. a judicial order that prevents speech from occurring:).
Prior Restraints are “the most serious and least tolerable infringement on First Amendment Rights.” Neb. Press Ass’n v. Stewart, 427 U.S. 539, 559 (1976). There is a “deep-seated American hostility to prior restraint” Id at 589 (Brennan, J. concurring).
Injunctive relief to prevent actual or threatened damage is heavily disfavored because it interferes with the First Amendment and amounts to censorship prior to a judicial determination of the lawlessness of speech. See Moore v. City Dry Cleaners & Laundry, 41 So. 2d 865, 872 (Fla. 1949). “The special vice of prior restraint,” the Supreme Court held, “is that communication will be suppressed... before an adequate determination that it is unprotected by the First Amendment”. Pittsburgh Press Co v. Pittsburg Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U.S. 376, 390 (1973). Also se Fort Wayn Books Inc. v Indiana, 489 U.S. 46, 66 (1989); M.I.C., Ltd v Bedford Township, 463 U.S. 1341, 11343 (1983.)
“RKA sought extraordinary relief in the form of prior restraint to enjoin .. . This relief is not recognized in this State, nor anywhere else in the Country. In addition to ignoring the First Amendment Rights and almost a century’s worth of common law, the .. court ignored virtually all procedural requirements for the issue of a preliminary injunction.” Page 5 Paragraph ii of Opening Brief Appellate Case No. 3D12-3189, Irina Chevaldina Appellant vs. R.K./FI Management Inc.;et.al., Appellees. Attorney for Appellant Marc J. Randazza Florida Bar No. 325566, Randazza Legal Group Miami Florida. "
Research Fraud on the Courts, Judicial Cannons and ...
In the United States, when an officer of the court is found to have fraudulently presented facts to court so that the court is impaired in the impartial performance of its legal task, the act, known as "fraud upon the court", is a crime deemed so severe and fundamentally opposed to the operation of justice that it is not subject to any statute of limitation.
Officers of the court include: Lawyers, Judges, Referees, and those appointed; Guardian Ad Litem, Parenting Time Expeditors, Mediators, Rule 114 Neutrals, Evaluators, Administrators, special appointees, and any others whose influence are part of the judicial mechanism.
"Fraud upon the court" has been defined by the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery can not perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication". Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23
In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function ‐‐‐ thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted."
What effect does an act of “fraud upon the court” have upon the court proceeding? “Fraud upon the court” makes void the orders and judgments of that court."
Also Check Out this Nevada SLAPP Suit to Chill Free Speech