Source: http://www.lasikdecision.com/?page_id=168
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 10:39:43+00:00

Document:
PROCEEDINGS. JURISDICTION RELINQUISHEDâ€¦â€¦3/9/07 RECORD RETURNED.
J. MORGANâ€™S MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE EUGENE MAIER FILED).
MORGANâ€™S RESPONSE, THE MOTION IS DENIED. BY THE COURT: HON. EUGENE EDWARD J.
PLAINTIFFS NEVYASESâ€™ MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING FILED.
December 08, 2009: REPLY BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFSâ€™ MOTION TO AMEND ORDER TO CERTIFY FOR PURPOSES OF TAKING AN INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL An interlocutory appeal is appropriate in this action because the question of whether Dr. Nevyas, Dr.Wallace and their medical practice are limited purpose public figures is the controlling question in this litigation. The Courtâ€™s finding that plaintiffs are limited purpose public figures has a profound effect on this litigation. It requires Plaintiffs to prove actual malice.
For several years, Dominic Morgan and the principals of the Nevyas Eye Clinic have been jousting over Morganâ€™s contention that, by performing inappropriate lasik surgery on him in 1998, and overlooking indications that he was not a good candidate for such surgery, the Nevyases are responsible for making him legally blind. The Nevyases filed a Lanham Act false advertising suit, claiming that Morganâ€™s â€œsucksâ€ web site would mislead consumers about the quality of their services; that action was promptly dismissed. They also sued in state court for defamation, and obtained an injunction against the maintenance of his â€œsucksâ€ web site. Public Citizen represented Morgan on appeal from the injunction, arguing that the injunction was an unconstitutional prior restraint; the appellate court reversed on state law grounds. The libel case continues to wend its way through the Pennsylvania state courts; most recently it is the Nevyases who plan to appeal, from the determination that they are limited purpose public figures who, therefore, have to prove that Morganâ€™s comments were posted with knowledge of their falsity or reckless disregard of a likelihood of falsity.
More recently, however, the Nevyases upped the ante by pursuing another trademark claim, this time invoking an infringement theory. The basis for this claim is that by creating web sites that use the Nevyas name in the domain name â€“ anitanevyaslasik.com, herbertnevyaslasik.com, and nevyaslasik.com â€” Morgan is likely to confuse consumers into believing the web sites that announce â€œWhy I do not recommend [the Nevyasesâ€™ services]â€ are sponsored by the Nevyases themselves. Apparently, what got the Nevyases really upset was that Morganâ€™s gripe sites rank in the first few hits on Google when users search for information about the Nevyases and their lasik clinic. So far as we can tell, they gave no consideration to the possibility that a silly claim of trademark infringement might just bring more attention to Morganâ€™s gripes.
Instead of suing in federal court, the Nevyases took a complaint to the National Arbitration Forum under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Procedure. Over the years, the UDRP has been criticized for its bias in favor of trademark owners, and the NAF in particular has been notorious for offering business clients a friendly forum in which to cheat consumers out of their legal rights. Sure enough, the Arbitration Forum appointed a Florida trademark law professor who is a former in-house IP lawyer, who accepted the Nevyases unsworn claims as true even though Morgan denied them, refused to consider the many cases decided by the federal courts that uphold the use of trademarks in the domain names of gripe sites, and ruled in favor of the Nevyases. The panelist told the National Law Journal that any claims of bias are false because most UDRP claims arenâ€™t close.
On July 1, 2010, Drs. Herbert Nevyas and Dr. Anita Nevyas-Wallace filed requests for arbitration under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (â€œUDRPâ€) with the National Arbitration Forum, seeking the transfer of the domain names NevyasLasik.com, HerbertNevyasLasik.com, and AnitaNevyasLasik.com.
Exactly 2 WEEKS AFTER THEY COMPLAINED TO THE NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM, Anitaâ€™s son Jonathan Wallace registered 87 domain names, using 30 different variations of Morgan’s name and or websites. In December 2010, the Nevyases decided they did not want to litigate the case in Federal Court due to â€œcost of litigationâ€. Morgan did not find the information regarding what Anita Nevyasâ€™ son did until well after December 2010. This was never brought up or addressed to the courts because Morgan did not, nor did he care.
Complainants have advertised their lasik practice to the general public since 1992 and have done so continuously using the marks â€œDr. Herbert Nevyas,â€ â€œDr. Anita Nevyas,â€ â€œNevyas Eye Associates,â€ and â€œNevyas Lasik.â€ Ex. B. In addition to traditional forms of advertising and marketing, Complainants advertise their practice online through the websites Nevyas.com and NevyasVideo.com, through informational articles posted on other websites, and through online videos at websites such as YouTube.com. Ex. B. For example, Complainantsâ€™ YouTube videos display the headings â€œDr. Herbert J. Nevyas LASIKâ€ and â€œNevyas Eye Associates LASIK.â€ See YouTube videos displaying marks, attached as Exhibit D.
The Forum has previously recognized that individuals have common law trademark rights in their own names enforceable in domain dispute proceedings. See Jerry Damson, Inc. v. Texas International Property Assoc., F0702000916991 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007) (Jerry Damson doing business under the mark â€œJerry Damson Acuraâ€ had right to JerryDamsonAcura.com domain name). See also Margaret Drabble v. Old Barn Studios Ltd., D2001-020 (WIPO Mar. 26, 2001) (author Margaret Drabble had common law rights to MarthaDrabble.com domain); Jeanette Winterson v. Mark Hogarth, D2000-0235 (WIPO May 22, 2000) (Jeanette Winterson had common law rights to her name); Julia Fiona Roberts v. Russell Boyd D2000-0210 (WIPO May 29, 2000) (Julia Roberts had common law rights to â€œJulia Robertsâ€); Thibodeau, v. Yomtobian, FA 94868 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 28, 2000) (rights to â€œDr. Laurenâ€ in dispute re: www.drlauren.com).
Finally, it is not necessary that Complainants own a trademark registration for their mark for that mark to be protected. See Jerry Damson, supra; Broad Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000) (the Policy â€œdoes not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademarks and service marks in the context of abusive registration of domain namesâ€ and applying Policy to â€œunregistered trademarks and service marksâ€). Complainants have continuously used the â€œNevyas Lasikâ€ mark and similar trademarks containing their names and the â€œNevyasâ€ surname in connection with their medical and surgical ophthalmology practices since at least as early as 1995. Ex. B. As such, they have developed common law rights in the marks. See Tuxedos By Rose v. Nunez, FA 95248 (finding common law rights in a mark where its use was continuous and ongoing).
[a.] Respondentâ€™s domain names are nearly identical to Complainantsâ€™ trademarks, pursuant to ICANN Policy Â¶ 4(a)(i), and are being used in a deceptive manner.
Google search results, attached as Ex. E (Respondentâ€™s websites are highlighted so that they can be distinguished from Complainantsâ€™ website).
Once a patient or potential patient visits Respondentâ€™s websites, the patient views disparaging and false remarks about Complainants. See Printouts from Respondentâ€™s websites, attached as Exhibit F. Respondentâ€™s websites also contain links to other websites featuring the services of other lasik surgeons and doctors with similar ophthalmology practices. Id.
Respondentâ€™s websites track the number of clicks to each competitive website, suggesting that Respondent may be profiting from this confusion and traffic to his website by obtaining clickthrough fees. Id.
[b.] Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain names, pursuant to ICANN Policy Â¶ 4(a)(ii).
Respondent is apparently an individual by the name of Dom Morgan, who was previously involved in state and federal litigation with Complainants. See Ex. F (Printout from Respondentâ€™s websites stating websites are owned by Dom Morgan). Dom Morgan was a patient of Complainants in 1998 who was unhappy with the results of his treatment and subsequently posted numerous false, disparaging and defamatory statements regarding Complainants and their practice on multiple websites. Ex. B. Complainants sued him and subsequent to these lawsuits, statements were removed from his websites. Unfortunately, the partiesâ€™ legal battle continues. Ex. B.
www.nevyasvmorgan.com, www.lasikdecision.com, www.lasikliberty.com, www.lasikfda.com, and www.flawedlasik.com. See Exhibit G (Whois Information for Respondentâ€™s Other Websites). Respondent also operated the website www.lasiksucks4you.com. This action does not implicate Respondentâ€™s ability to post critical statements regarding Complainants on those domains, or any domains that do not contain Complainantsâ€™ trademarks. The domain names at issue in this action indicate that they are owned by Complainants, not that they are owned by an individual criticizing Complainants.
1. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domains because he is not commonly known by Complainantsâ€™ trademarks and does not use the marks in connection with a legitimate offering of goods and services.
Other links on Respondentâ€™s website also advertise competitive products and services.
See Printouts from Respondentâ€™s websites, attached as Exhibit F. Respondentâ€™s websites display the number of hits on each link, indicating that Respondentâ€™s websites have redirected thousands of consumers to other websites advertising competitive products and services. Respondent also has a history of using websites to solicit donations to pay his legal fees in litigation against Complainants. See, e.g., http://www.lasik-flap.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=373.
Respondentâ€™s NevyasLasik.com domains invite visitors to contact him and support him in his litigation with Complainants.
Respondent has no trademark or service mark rights in the â€œNevyas Lasik,â€ â€œAnita Nevyas Lasikâ€ or â€œHerbert Nevyas Lasikâ€ trademarks and is not commonly known by these marks. Having no rights in the marks at issue, and offering no goods or services, Respondent simply attempts to profit and damage Complainants by misleadingly diverting customer traffic away from Nevyas.com and to his websites and the links on his websites.
Respondentâ€™s use of domain names that are nearly identical to Complainantsâ€™ marks to divert Internet users to websites that offer competitive products and services, and for which Respondent presumably receives a commission or click-through fees, is not a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domains under the ICANN Policy. See Emmit Smith, III v. EmmitSmith.com, FA 555486 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 26, 2005) (citing Disney Enters., Inc. v. Dot Stop, FA 145227 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 17, 2003) (finding that the respondentâ€™s diversionary use of the complainantâ€™s mark to attract Internet users to its own website, which contained a series of hyperlinks to unrelated websites, was neither a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names); Black & Decker Corp. v. Clinical Evaluations, FA 112629 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2002) (holding that the respondentâ€™s use of the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to commercial websites, unrelated to the complainant and presumably with the purpose of earning a commission or pay-per-click referral fee did not evidence rights or legitimate interests in the domain name)).
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the domains because he is not making a legitimate, non-commercial fair use of the domains pursuant to Paragraph 4c(iii), but is using the domains with an intent to tarnish Complainantsâ€™ trademarks and profit from misleadingly diverting customers.
Respondent registered the NevyasLasik.com domains in February, 2009. See Ex. A. Respondentâ€™s legal battles with Complainants began in 2000 and have continued into the present.
Ex. B. Respondentâ€™s websites make clear that Respondentâ€™s goal is to tarnish Complainantsâ€™ trademarks, damage Complainantsâ€™ business, and profit from the use of Complainantsâ€™ marks.
Complainants assert this complaint not to impair Respondentâ€™s First Amendment rights but because Respondent is using Complainantsâ€™ trademarks in the NevyasLasik.com domains to suggest that the domains are sponsored by or affiliated with Complainants, to confuse Complainantsâ€™ patients and potential patients, and to lure traffic to Respondentâ€™s websites.
Respondentâ€™s website headlines â€“ â€œNevyas Eye Associatesâ€ and â€œWelcome to NevyasLasik.com!â€ â€“ misleadingly suggest that patients will be visiting Nevyas Eye Associates or Complainantsâ€™ â€œNevyas Lasikâ€ practice if they select those links. Once the patient arrives at Respondentâ€™s websites, Respondentâ€™s has already profited from this initial interest confusion and has succeeded in tarnishing Complainantsâ€™ trademarks.
[c.] Respondent registered and uses the domains in bad faith, pursuant to ICANN Policy Â¶ 4(a)(iii).
1. Respondentâ€™s Registration of Multiple Domain Names Containing Complainantsâ€™ Marks and His Advertisement and Use of Those Domain Names Causes a Likelihood of Confusion, Particularly Initial Interest Confusion, to Attract Individuals Seeking Complainantsâ€™ Website to Respondentâ€™s Websites.
Respondentâ€™s use of Complainantsâ€™ marks in his domain names creates a likelihood of confusion and suggests an attempt to attract Internet users to Respondentâ€™s websites for commercial gain. See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 22, 2003) (â€œRegistration and use of a domain name that incorporates anotherâ€™s mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith.â€); see also G.D. Searle & Co. v. Celebrex Drugstore, FA 123933 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 21, 2002); Kmart v. Khan, FA 127708 (Nat. Arb. Forum Nov. 22, 2002).
Furthermore, where a disputed domain name containing the complainantâ€™s trademark is being used to feature links to websites that compete with the complainant, presumably for referral fees, that use alone constitutes bad faith under the Policy. See Univ. of Houston Sys. v. Salvia Corp., FA 637920 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 21, 2006); Asbury Auto. Group, Inc., v. Tex. Intâ€™l Prop. Assoc., FA 958542 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 29, 2007); David Hall Rare Coins v. Tex. Intâ€™l Prop. Assoc., FA 915206 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 9, 2007); Am. Airlines, Inc., v. Tex. Intâ€™l Prop. Assoc., FA 914854 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 10, 2007).
2. Respondent Engaged in a Pattern of Registering Domains Reflecting Complainantsâ€™ Trademarks, Which Prevents Complainants from Registering Corresponding Domain Names Reflecting Their Marks.
Pursuant to Paragraph 4(a)(iii), evidence of bad faith also includes evidence that the Respondent â€œregistered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that [Respondent] engaged in a pattern of such conduct.â€ Respondentâ€™s registration of a series of domains that all contain essentially the same website content suggests a pattern of registering domains so that Complainants cannot register them. There is no other justification for Respondentâ€™s ownership of a series of domain names featuring the same website content.
3. Respondent Registered the Domain Names Primarily for the Purpose of Disrupting Complainantsâ€™ Business.
LasikDecision.com. I would also like to show how I believe the courts were wrong in many of their decisions and/or opinions regarding my med mal lawsuit Morgan v. Nevyas and the current Nevyas v. Morgan lawsuit.â€ Ex. F.
Complainants request that the panel issue a decision that Respondentâ€™s domain-name registrations be transferred to Complainants.
Complainants assert that a copy of this Complaint, together with the cover sheet as prescribed by NAFâ€™s Supplemental Rules, has been sent or transmitted to Respondent at the contact information provided, in accordance with ICANN Rule 2(b), and to the domain name Registrar at the contact information provided, in accordance with NAF Supp. Rule 4(e).
Complainants agree that their claims and remedies concerning the registration of the domain name, the dispute, or the disputeâ€™s resolution shall be solely against the domain-name holder and waive all such claims and remedies against (a) the National Arbitration Forum and panelists, except in the case of deliberate wrongdoing, (b) the Registrar, (c) the registry administrator, and (d) the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, as well as their directors, officers, employees, and agents.
b) First and foremost, it is important to note at the outset that this is a case about Internet gripe sites in which the names of the Complainants â€“ Herbert and Anita Nevyas â€” have been used in the domain names for sites that are devoted to describing Respondentâ€Ÿs criticisms of those Complainants. Even assuming that their names can be the subject of a trademark-like UDRP complaint, this UDRP proceeding should take account of constitutional and trademark law in the United States, where the validity of any decision by the UDRP panel will be contested. And courts in the United States have consistently held that trademark claims over domain names in the form www.trademark.com cannot be brought when the domain name is used for a web site that is about the trademark holder, so long as the web site itself is not confusing about whether it is sponsored by the trademark holder.
Lighthouse Ministry v. Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 527 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir. 2008); Lamparello v. Falwell, 420 F.3d 309 (4th Cir. 2005), revâ€™g 360 F. Supp 2d 768 (E.D.Va. 2004); Lucas Nursery and Landscaping v. Grosse, 359 F.3d 806 (6th Cir. 2004); Taubman v. WebFeats, 319 F3d 770 (6th Cir. 2003). Indeed, the First Amendment limits trademark law to commercial uses. Id. Consequently, it is an independent ground for objecting to the application of trademark law to the use of domain names like those at issue here that the use is for the non-commercial purpose of expressing opinions about the trademark holder. Lighthouse Ministry v. Foundation for Apologetic Information and Research, 527 F.3d 1045 (10th Cir. 2008); Bosley Medical v. Kremer, 403 F.3d 672 (9th Cir. 2005); TMI v. Maxwell, 368 F.3d 433 (5th Cir. 2004); Taubman v. WebFeats, 319 F3d 770 (6th Cir. 2003).
<nevyaslasik.com> â€œWhy I do not recommend Nevyas Eye Associates!â€, <anitanevyaslasik.com> â€œWhy I do not recommend Anita Nevyas!â€, and <herbertnevyaslasik.com> â€œWhy I do not recommend Herbert Nevyas!â€. The title pages of each site have also been changed to further reflect these sites are not complainant(s).
d) Respondent owns < nevyaslasik.com>, < anitanevyaslasik.com>, and < herbertnevyaslasik.com> and has rights and legitimate interests in that is/are the subject of the complaint. ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(2); ICANN Policy Â¶ 4(a)(ii).
Bridgestone Firestone, Inc. v. Myers, WIPO Case No. D2000-0190 (July 6, 2000); Bosley Med. Group v. Kremer, WIPO Case No. D2000-1647 (February 28, 2001); TMP Worldwide Inc. v. Potter, WIPO Case No. D2000-0536 (August 5, 2000); The Am. Natâ€™l Red Cross v. Mafiabusters.com LLC, NAF File No. FA0206000114589 (August 6, 2002); Pensacola Christian College Inc. v. Gage, NAF File No. FA0110000101314 (December 12, 2001); Compusa Mgmt. Co. v. Customized Computer Training, NAF File No. FA0006000095082 (August 17, 2000); Robo Enters., Inc. v. Daringer, NAF File No. FA0101000096375 (February 21, 2001); Savin Corp. v. savinsucks.com, NAF File No. FA0201000103982 (March 5, 2002); Bloomberg L.P. v. Secaucus Group, NAF File No. FA0104000097077 (June 7, 2001); Mayo Found. for Ed. and Research v. Briese, NAF File No. FA0102000096765 (May 4, 2001); Dorset Police v. Coulter, eRes Case No. AF-0942 (October 20, 2001); Carefree Toland Pools, Inc. v. Thomson, eRes Case No. AF-1012 (October 30, 2001); cf. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. MacLeod, WIPO Case No. D2000-0662 (September 19, 2000) (stating that criticism can be a legitimate interest, but finding no legitimate interest because the protest site was created only as a pretext for selling the site back to the trademark owner); Becker & Poliakoff, P.A. v. Isabell, eRes Case No. AF-0847 (August 9, 2000) (stating the panel would find criticism to be a legitimate fair use if it had not decided the dispute on other grounds). Respondent Morgan also is not a commercial enterprise and the sole purpose of his websites are to provide verifiable, factual information about respondent Morganâ€Ÿs experiences with complainant(s). Although the information provided on Respondentâ€™s web site admittedly is, and should be, embarrassing to complainant and its LASIK surgeons, complainant has not provided any evidence to support his allegation that it is defamatory. There is significant social value in permitting people to express their opinions as part of their First Amendment rights, just as there is a right to criticize public figures and organizations under the freedom of speech principles of the U.S. Constitution. These rights clearly override the minimal commercial value of a domain name in a case like this.
ii) The accuracy and legitimacy of respondent Morganâ€Ÿs claims about complainant(s) on <nevyaslasik.com>, < herbertnevyaslasik.com>, and < anitanevyaslasik.com> are confirmed by the public documents throughout Respondent Morganâ€Ÿs websites.
c) Respondent has not registered <nevyaslasik.com>, < anitanevyaslasik.com>, and < herbertnevyaslasik.com> in bad faith ICANN Rule 3(b)(ix)(3); ICANN Policy Â¶ 4(a)(iii).
5 Exhibit 5 â€“ The link for lasikinfocenter.com has since been removed from the sites listed.
that, on a different web site that does not contain any of Complainantsâ€Ÿ names in the URL, Respondent Morgan urged public support for Public Citizen,6 a not for profit organization and accepts no government or corporate money â€“ they rely solely on foundation grants, publication sales and support from their members. As previously noted, Public Citizenâ€Ÿs litigation group represented Respondent Morgan in a successful appeal from an injunction against the maintenance of that web site. But there is no appeal for support for Public Citizen on any of the web sites at issue in this case and, in any event, the United States Court of Appeals has specifically held than an expression of support for Public Citizen, along with a link to its web site, by one of its clients in a domain name case did not make that web site â€œcommercialâ€ and hence amenable to suit under the trademark laws.
Bosley Med. Group, WIPO Case No. D2000-1647 (using <trademark.com> to comment on trademark owner is fair use), with Nintendo of Am. v. Jones, WIPO Case No. D2000-0998 (November 17, 2000) (â€œInsofar as a domain name which is identical to a name or mark is used solely in the context of the product of the owner of the name or mark and the owner objects to the use, it is not legitimate.â€). In the absence of a consensus, a panel must consider the partiesâ€Ÿ arguments and relevant legal authorities and then make a decision consistent with the goals of the Policy and the Rules, as well as general legal principles. See Rules Paragraph 15(a) (â€œA Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.â€). Moreover, as discussed above, because Complainant has accepted jurisdiction for judicial review in the United States, the panel should apply United States law, including both the First Amendment and the many court decisions limiting the use of trademark law to domain names for non-commercial web sites about the trademark holder. Prior panel decisions finding no legitimate interest in using a domain name in the form of <trademark.com> for the purpose of criticizing or commenting on the trademark owner all relate to a trademark owner that is a commercial enterprise. Complainant claims to offer a â€œnon-profitâ€ service. Respondent also does not offer or provide any goods or services through its web site, nor does it solicit or accept donations. Accordingly, there is no intent to divert nor effective diversion of any commerce, nor any risk of misdirected donations. Respondent has neither sought nor received any commercial gain from the registration and use of the domain name.
v) Complainants also protest at length about the way Respondent Morgan â€œadvertisesâ€ his web site in Google. Respondent does not â€œadvertiseâ€ on Google â€“ Google crawls web sites, identifies sites that are believed to be relevant to search queries using its sophisticated algorithm, and then returns search results accordingly. And it is Google, not Respondent, that decides how to describe the sites being returned, drawing text from the sites themselves. Each of the items about which the Nevyases complain are â€œorganicâ€ search results whose placement and content are determined solely by Google in its own discretion. Moreover, the courts do not agree with the implicit argument by complainants that the content of search listings makes out a basis for trademark litigation. No case based on the theory of â€œinitial interest confusionâ€ can be made out when a user of a search engine clicks on a search result and comes to a landing page that so clearly dispels any possible confusion as Respondentâ€Ÿs pages do, by expressly criticizing the trademark holder. And, even if there were a possible trademark claim, it would not be a UDRP claim which is based only on the content of the domain name.
7 Exhibit 7 â€“ Claimant(s) wrote this letter over 7 years after Respondent Morgan last saw them as a patient. Respondent Morgan believes the actions of claimant(s) was of vindictive nature and to further harass Morgan.
Respondent Morgan asserts that a copy of the Response, as prescribed by NAFâ€Ÿs Supplemental Rules, has been sent or transmitted to the Complainant(s), in accordance with ICANN Rule 2(b). ICANN Rule 5(b)(vii); NAF Supp. Rule 5.
Respondent Morgan certifies that the information contained in this Response is to the best of Respondentâ€Ÿs knowledge complete and accurate, that this Response is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Response are warranted under these Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument.
Complainants Dr. Herbert Nevyas and Dr. Anita Nevyas-Wallace (â€œComplainantsâ€) submit this additional submission in reply to the Response filed by Respondent Dom Morgan / n/a (â€œRespondentâ€).
[a.] Respondentâ€™s Belated Revisions to His Websites Are Not Evidence of His Rights to the Domains; To the Contrary, They Evidence Respondentâ€™s Bad Faith Prior to His Receipt of the Complaint.
Respondent states that since receiving the Complaint in this matter, he: (1) removed the link on his website to www.lasikinfocenter.com, which contained advertisements for Complainantsâ€™ competitors; and (2) revised the title pages of his websites so as to not misleadingly refer to Complainants. Response, at 3, 5, Ex. 5.
Respondentâ€™s removal of commercial links on his website and the edits to his website text do not absolve him from liability in this proceeding, because the Policy focuses on the content of Respondentâ€™s websites before the date the Complaint was filed. Paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy states that a respondent may demonstrate â€œrights to and legitimate interests in the domain nameâ€ by showing â€œbefore any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or servicesâ€¦â€ Policy, 4(c)(i).
[b.] Respondentâ€™s Statement That Google â€“ and Not Respondent â€“ Is Responsible For the Way His Websites Appear to Consumers in Search Results is False.
When Respondent created his website content, he alone selected the underlined phrases displayed above and in Google search results. These phrases authored by Respondent are part of his websitesâ€™ content and are one of the reasons his website content is misleading to consumers.
Respondent argues that â€œthis is a case about Internet gripe sitesâ€ but unlike gripe sites, such as ThisNissanSucks.com, the domain names here give no indication that their purpose is criticism.
Response, at 3. Respondent also previously contacted Dr. Stephen Barrett, the Board Chairman of Quackwatch, Inc. (an organization dedicated to consumer protection and health fraud prevention), with his allegations regarding Complainants. See Exhibit 2 (Emails from Dr. Barrett). Dr. Barrett remarked that he felt Complainants were reputable and that Respondentâ€™s current website may expose him to a libel suit and Respondent replied that his intention with the website was to put Complainants out of business. Id. Respondentâ€™s bad faith intent to disrupt Complainantsâ€™ business by causing consumer confusion could not be clearer.
It is unnecessary to detail the inaccurate statements made by Respondent regarding underlying disputes with Complainants here, because those statements have no relevance in this proceeding. To summarize, Respondent was unhappy with the results of his medical malpractice lawsuit against Complainants, because Complainants did not commit medical malpractice, and thereafter Respondent began carrying out his stated intention of putting Complainants out of business through internet gripe sites. However, Respondent crossed the line and violated the Policy when he began registering domains comprised of Complainantsâ€™ trademarks and including links to Complainantsâ€™ competitors on those websites.
Although the partiesâ€™ previous litigation also involves Respondentâ€™s websites, the litigation does not concern the domains at issue here. Complainantsâ€™ defamation claims against Respondent focused on Respondentâ€™s statements on the website.
Finally, although Respondent asserts that he did not obtain click-through fees or any other commercial profit by advertising the services of Complainantsâ€™ competitors, this assertion is unsubstantiated by any evidence. The evidence shows that Respondentâ€™s websites link to Complainantsâ€™ competitors websites and those â€œhitsâ€ are tracked on Respondentâ€™s websites. See Complaint attached Exhibits. He admits that he links to professionals in the field who may hope that viewers will choose their services and â€œ[m]ost Lasik websites are advertisements for having Lasik eye surgery.â€ Response, at 3. However, he argues â€œthat is not why Respondent Morgan has linked to them.â€ Id.
Respondentâ€™s internal motivation in linking to these websites is irrelevant; it is sufficient that the disputed domains link to Complainantsâ€™ competitors. Furthermore, Respondent himself does not have to be a direct competitor of Complainants to have acted in bad faith. See St. Lawrence University v. Nextnet Tech c/o Domain Dept, FA0701000881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (â€œBy redirecting Internet users seeking information on Complainantâ€™s educational institution to competing websites, Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy Â¶ 4(b)(iii)); Mission KwaSizabantu v. Rost, D2000-0279 (WIPO June 7, 2000) (defining â€œcompetitorâ€ as â€œone who acts in opposition to another and the context does not imply or demand any restricted meaning such as commercial or business competitorâ€); S. Exposure v. S. Exposure, Inc., FA 94864 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 18, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered the domain name in question to disrupt the business of the complainant, a competitor of the respondent); EBAY, Inc. v. MEOdesigns, D2000-1368 (WIPO Dec. 15, 2000) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name <eebay.com> in bad faith where the respondent has used the domain name to promote competing auction sites).
This action does not implicate Respondentâ€™s First Amendment rights or his ability to post critical statements regarding Complainants on any of the other domains he owns that do not contain Complainantsâ€™ trademarks, such as LasikDecision.com, FlawedLasik.com, etc. This action concerns only Respondentâ€™s ownership of the domain names NevyasLasik.com, AnitaNevyasLasik.com and HerbertNevyasLasik.com and his registration and use of those domains in violation of the Policy.
For the foregoing reasons, and the reasons described in Complainantsâ€™ Complaint, the NevyasLasik.com, HerbertNevyasLasik.com, and AnitaNevyasLasik.com domains should be transferred to Complainants.
In 2003 University of Cincinatti Law Professor James Oâ€™Reilly contacted me and asked me to post, on my website, his article on legal and regulatory problems involving LASIK eye surgery, and I agreed. After the Nevyases sued me, I asked professor Oâ€™Reilly to re-evaluate my website. He did, and prepared a declaration, which I posted online.
I published my law review essay, AN EYE FOR AN EYE: FORESIGHT ON REMEDIES FOR LASIK SURGERYâ€™S PROBLEMS, at 71 U. Cin. L. Rev. 541 (2002), as part of our Faculty Scholarship symposium issue.
3. I became aware of Mr. Morganâ€™s website, Lasiksucks4u.com, upon the unsolicited recommendation of a person in California who had read my law review article and encouraged me to read Mr. Morganâ€™s website comments. I found the material posted on Lasiksucks4u.com to be educational and useful, particularly for anyone considering having LASIK surgical procedures performed on themselves. I did an internet search using the google.com search engine and believe that the numerical majority of the dozens of sites listed there are commercial vendors of LASIK products or surgeons providing LASIK.
5. Although my law review article is legal scholarship directed particularly toward lawyers, I hope its opinions can also be part of the wider education of the public, since I consider public education to be a major responsibility of the legal profession, particularly for legal academics. As a scholar recognized in the field of medical device and products liability law, the general publicâ€™s awareness of product risks is an extremely important aspect of our protections as members of American society.
I have followed the LASIK situation very carefully because I write a college textbook that helps people learn how to make intelligent decisions about health mattersâ€¦. About two months ago, Mr. Morgan notified me that he had created his site and expressed concern that I had an article by Dr. Nevyas on Quackwatch. (The article was prepared for my textbook.)â€¦. You seem to be under the impression that the purpose of the site is to warn people about the potential dangers of LASIK surgery and that it provides an appropriate warning.
However, it seems to me that the primary purpose of the site is to put Dr. Herbert Nevyas and his daughter Anita Nevyas-Wallace, MD (who operated on Mr. Morgan) out of business.â€¦. Dr. Herbert Nevyas is probably the most respected eye surgeon in Philadelphia.â€¦ At the very least, you should withdraw your declarationâ€¦.
Professor Oâ€™Reilly investigated. He learned that Herbert Nevyas never did Lasik at any hospital, had ceased all hospital operations for over ten years, operated only in his own outpatient surgicenter, and advertised extensively. His operations were not subject to any peer review except by his wife (who never had an ophthalmology residency but was apprenticeship-trained by her husband). In turn, Herbert Nevyas did the â€œpeer reviewâ€ of his wife and daughter. This arrangement satisfied the law mandating peer review of outpatient surgicenters, but it also indicated that Dr. Barrettâ€™s â€œcollege textbook that helps people learn how to make intelligent decisions about health mattersâ€ did not value peer review. In preaching the virtues of â€œprobably the most respected eye surgeon in Philadelphiaâ€ to young college students in Allentown, a city merely 54 miles from Philadelphia (Rand-McNally), Dr. Barrett knowingly promoted a medical entrepreneur.
When a large law firm submits â€œearwitnessâ€ testimony to a trier of fact without revealing that the â€œearwitnessâ€ is brother-in-law and uncle to complainants (see p. 3 of Complainantsâ€™ Additional Submission), have those lawyers fulfilled their duty of candor?
The initial complaint was filed July 6, 2010. Less than 2 weeks after, 87 domains were registered by complainantâ€™s grandson/son Jonathan Wallace (please see attached) however none of this was ever presented to the NAF or the courts because I did not find out until after the complainants refused to litigate.
I believe the NAFâ€™s decision should be retracted however, it is highly unlikely due to the timeframe of this response and the prejudice shown by the NAF. Simply put, you and the forum have been duped. I hope in the future you rely on facts.
In 2011, the Nevyas v. Morgan case finally went to trial in front of Judge Victor DiNubile. His final ruling gave the Nevyases the injunctive relief theyâ€™ve sought for numerous years even after hearing testimony from Dr. Morris Waxler, former FDA Director of Medical Devices (Superior Court Copy – PART1, PART2, PART3, PART4, PART5). Noted extensively were violations of the Nevyases and the illegalities of their investigational study and also of the FDA sending warning letters consistently about Nevyasesâ€™ violations, including one sent in 2012!
Per DiNubileâ€™s order: I had to remove the Nevyas laser was a â€œblack box laserâ€.
Morris Waxler (who was head of the medical devices panel at the FDA during my LASIK) testified at trial that the Nevyas laser was indeed a â€œblack boxâ€ laser. Both Nevyases perjured themselves at the contempt hearing stating it was not.
Per DiNubileâ€™s specific instructions,The letter I wrote to the American Academy of Ophthalmology was never introduced as evidence at trial or appeal. They may have stated but never argued the letter as defamatory, nor did DiNubile allow the email from Matthew Tarosky to Jo Wills, whose husband was also damaged by the Nevyases to be presented at trial.
The March 2011 trial was never really about me. The only thing I believe the Nevyases were interested in was going after my ex attorneyâ€™s insurance company. They sued him for $1mil because I posted letters on my websites he wrote to the FDA on my behalf (They lost). The letters, all factual had been removed several years prior but I was still ordered by the courts to never repost them.
I was also ordered to remove (per DiNubileâ€™s specific instructions) that â€œthe Nevyases damaged my eyesâ€.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.