Source: http://www.lasikdecision.com/?page_id=168
Timestamp: 2018-12-11 18:26:59
Document Index: 519250078

Matched Legal Cases: ['§4904', 'ART1', 'ART2', 'ART3', 'ART4', 'ART5']

PROCEEDINGS. JURISDICTION RELINQUISHEDâ€¦â€¦3/9/07 RECORD RETURNED.
76-07051276 ANSWER OF PLAINTIFFâ€™S HERBERT J. NEVYAS, M.D.,
76-07051276 IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFT, STEVEN FRIEDMANâ€™S
MOTION TO RECUSE IS DENIED. BY THE COURT â€¦MAIER,J 7/2/07
J. MORGANâ€™S MOTION TO RECUSE JUDGE EUGENE MAIER FILED).
02-07070902 ANSWER OF PLAINTIFFSâ€™ HERBERT J. NEVYAS, M.D.,
97-07071697 ANSWER OF PLAINTIFFSâ€™ HERBERT J. NEVYAS, M.D.,
54-07080054 ANSWER OF PLAINTIFFSâ€™ HERBERT J. NEVYAS, M.D.,
02-07070902 REPLY OF DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFFâ€™S RESPONSE TO
45-07072345 IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFT, DOMINIC MORGANâ€™S MOTION
FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. BY THE COURT â€¦MAIER,J 10/4/07
02-07070902 IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFT, DOMINIC MORGANâ€™S MOTION
TO RECUSE IS DENIED. BY THE COURT â€¦MAIER,J 10/4/07
97-07071697 IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFT, DOMINIC MORGANâ€™S IN
â€¦MAIER,J 10/4/07
54-07080054 IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFT, DOMINIC MORGANâ€™S IN
35-07080835 IT IS ORDERED THAT DEFT, DOMINIC MORGANâ€™S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED. BY THE COURT â€¦MAIER,J 10/4/07
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT IS GRANTED. SEE ORDER FOR TERMS. BY THE COURT â€¦MAIER,J
RECONSIDERED AND DENIED. BY THE COURT â€¦MAIER,J 10/15/07
CONSIDERATION OF PLAINTIFFSâ€™ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON REMAND AND DEFENDANT
MORGANâ€™S RESPONSE, THE MOTION IS DENIED. BY THE COURT: HON. EUGENE EDWARD J.
66-08060766 PRO SE DEFENDANT DOMINIC J. MORGANâ€™S RESPONSE TO
PLAINTIFFS NEVYASESâ€™ MOTION FOR AN EVIDENTIARY HEARING FILED.
June 17, 2009: “Before this court can rule on the merits of the defamation claim, it must first determine the Public Figure status of Plaintiffs. This determination of a plaintiffâ€™s public figure status is a particularized and fact sensitive analysis, but it is also a question of law to be determined by the court.“
July 09, 2009: â€œPRO SE DEFENDANT MORGANâ€™S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT FRIEDMANâ€™S MOTION TO DETERMINE PLAINTIFFSâ€™ PUBLIC FIGURE STATUS, AND CROSSMOTIONS FOR COMPULSORY NONSUIT OR JUDGMENT OF NON PROS, AND/OR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS; AND/OR SUMMARY JUDGEMENT TO COUNTS I AND II OF PLAINTIFFSâ€™ AMENDED COMPLAINT. 1. The Nevyas plaintiffs ignored Judge Sylvesterâ€™s instructions. See Section 1 of the Factual and Procedural History in the attached Memorandum. 2. The Nevyas plaintiffs filed an erroneous federal lawsuit. See Section 2 of the Factual and Procedural History in the attached Memorandum. 3. The Nevyas plaintiffs failed to properly transfer their federal action back to this court. See Section 3 of the Factual and Procedural History in the attached Memorandum. 4. The Nevyas plaintiffs exceeded the one-year statute of limitations against defendant Morganâ€™s pro bono attorney. See Section 4 of the Factual and Procedural History in the attached Memorandum. 5. The Nevyas plaintiffs improperly claimed that Morgan conspired with Friedman, in their reinstated claim. See Section 5 of the Factual and Procedural History in the attached Memorandum. 6. There were motions decided while the case was officially in abeyance. See Section 6 of the Factual and Procedural History in the attached Memorandum. 7. There was a motion decided while the case was officially in stay. See Section 7 of the Factual and Procedural History in the attached Memorandum. 8. The Superior Courtâ€™s Remand. See Section 8 of the Factual and Procedural History in the attached Memorandum. (This quotes from the Superior Courtâ€™s Remand – there is no question presented and no argument for this section.) 9. The Nevyas plaintiffs fail to allege that defendant Morgan re-posted the same statements that had been on his website as of July 30, 2003. See Section 9 of the Factual and Procedural History in the attached Memorandum. 10. The Nevyas plaintiffs try to excuse and exclude their failure to allege that defendant Morgan re-posted the same statements that had been on his website as of July 30, 2003. See Section 10 of the Factual and Procedural History in the attached Memorandum. 11. The Nevyas plaintiffs failed to honor their contract with defendant Morgan. See Section 11 of the Factual and Procedural History in the attached Memorandum. 12. The statements posted on Morganâ€™s website are not defamatory because they are true. See Section 12 of the Factual and Procedural History in the attached Memorandum. 13. The statements on Morganâ€™s website are either fact or opinion. See Section 13 of the Factual and Procedural History in the attached Memorandum. 14. The Nevyas plaintiffs are at least limited purpose public figures. See Section 14 of the Factual and Procedural History in the attached Memorandum. 15. If the Nevyas plaintiffs had not sworn falsely, and had produced the documents they withheld, this instant case would not exist. See Section 15 of the Factual and Procedural History in the attached Memorandum. 16. The above are relevant to defendant Morganâ€™s counter-suit. See Section 16 of the Factual and Procedural History in the attached Memorandum. WHEREFORE defendant Morgan moves this Honorable Court enter a suitable order granting the Motion of defendant Friedman and the instant Cross Motions of defendant Morgan.â€
July 20, 2009: â€œPRO SE DEFENDANT MORGANâ€™S REPLY TO â€œPLAINTIFFSâ€™ RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTâ€™S MOTION TO DETERMINE WHETHER PLAINTIFFS ARE PRIVATE FIGURES OR LIMITED PURPOSE PUBLIC FIGURESâ€ The Nevyas plaintiffsâ€™ Response shows them again trying to have it both ways, saying one thing to this court and a different thing outside this court. Examples include: 1. At paragraph 4 plaintiffs tell this court: â€œPlaintiffs deny that the outcome of the surgery was poor and further deny that Morgan is now legally blind.â€ Outside this court, plaintiff Herbert Nevyas states: â€œ…he reported vision as low as 20/200 in each eye when I last saw him. I know he has been judged legally blind….and that he is presently receiving Social Security Disability payments because of his legal blindness.â€ Exhibit D. 2. At paragraph 5 plaintiffs tell this court: â€œPlaintiffs, after reasonable investigation, have insufficient information to determine whether Defendant Friedman is a practicing physician….â€
August 05, 2009: â€œPRO SE DEFENDANT MORGANâ€™S SUR-REPLY TO â€œPLAINTIFFSâ€™ SUR-REPLY MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO DEFENDANT FRIEDMANâ€™S MOTION CONCERNING PLAINTIFFâ€™S PUBLIC FIGURE STATUS.â€ Plaintiffsâ€™ Sur-Reply shows them again trying to have it both ways, saying one thing to this court in their Amended Complaint, and a different thing in their Sur-Reply. Plaintiffs worked hard purporting themselves as â€œdoctorâ€™s doctorsâ€ at the forefront of eye care and LASIK surgery. For argumentâ€™s sake, even if they did not make themselves limited purpose public figures, Morgan did. By the time Friedman purportedly defamed them (by supposedly having Morgan post letters to the FDA), Morganâ€™s website was already prominent for almost one year and the public was already researching plaintiffs on the internet. As plaintiffs documented in their Amended Complaint at paragraphs 15, 17, 22, 23, 25, 52, 56, 57, 58:â€
December 02, 2009: â€œPlaintiffsâ€™ instant motion does not claim that this Courtâ€™s Order eliminates the need for trial, but only that this Courtâ€™s Order makes plaintiffsâ€™ success at trial more difficult. According to plaintiffsâ€™ argument, almost anything a judge orders is a â€œcontrolling issue of lawâ€ and subject to piecemeal appeal, including defendant Morganâ€™s unopposed cross-motions currently before this Court.â€
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.
December 24, 2009: â€œPlaintiffs assert that, if trial occurs with plaintiffs designated limited purpose public figures, they will appeal post-trial. Plaintiffs thus purport that is in everyone’s interest to have an interlocutory appeal now, purportedly to save time, etc. Plaintiffs lack credibility since, as the United States Supreme Court states, interlocutory appeals can increase trial court difficulty, delay, add costs, diminish coherence, and create additional and unnecessary appellate court work:â€
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.
According to the Complaint, the websites located at the domain names at issue in the proceeding contain â€œdisparaging and false remarks about Complainantsâ€ and falsely imply â€œthat they are owned by Complainants, not that they are owned by an individual criticizing Complainants.â€
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.
Respondentâ€™s domain names AnitaNevyasLasik.com, HerbertNevyasLasik.com, and NevyasLasik.com are nearly identical to Complainantsâ€™ names and trademarks. Complainants are well-known lasik surgeons whose services are advertised in connection with the marks â€œHerbert Nevyas Lasikâ€ and â€œAnita Nevyas Lasikâ€ and the domains Nevyas.com and NevyasVideo.com. It is well-established that the addition of a generic top level domain such as â€œ.comâ€ to a trademark, or other minor changes to the mark, do not cause the domain name to be non-identical. See, e.g., Jerry Damson, supra.; Tropar Mfg. Co., Inc. v. TSB, FA 127701 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 4, 2002 (â€œThe addition of a generic top-level domain does not add any distinguishing characteristics to a domain name because it is a required feature in every domain name.â€)
Respondent further increases the likelihood of confusion between his domains and Complainantsâ€™ by advertising his websites in a deceptive manner that suggests they are affiliated with Complainants and Nevyas Eye Associates. A Google search for â€œNevyas Lasikâ€ or a similar term displays the following Google headlines for Respondentâ€™s websites:
â€“ herbertnevyaslasik.com/
â€“ herbertnevyaslasik.com/index.php?â€¦
â€“ www.anitanevyaslasik.com/index.php?â€¦
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.
Prior panel decisions have held that this type of initial interest confusion, caused by the domain name itself, is impermissible. See The Paxton Herald v. Millard, FA0207000114770 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 21, 2002) (â€œWhile the content of Respondentâ€™s website may enjoy First Amendment and fair use protection, those protections do not equate to rights or a legitimate interest with respect to a domain name which is confusingly similar to anotherâ€™s trademark.â€); Council of American Survey v. Pinelands Web Services, D2002-0377 (WIPO July 19, 2002) (â€œRespondent may have a right to refer to the mark in critical content, the wholesale appropriation of Complainantâ€™s mark in a domain name, without any distinguishing material, creates confusion with Complainantâ€™s business and is not fair use merely for the purpose of criticismâ€¦No criticism is apparent from the domain name itself; it is not sufficient that the criticism may be apparent from the content of the site.â€)
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.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in NevyasLasik.com domains because he sells no goods or services on his websites and seeks only to capitalize on Complainantsâ€™ trademarks by luring consumer traffic to his website, disparaging Complainants, and advertising similar lasik services offered by other practitioners. For example, when one of the links on Respondentâ€™s website is clicked, the customer visits
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.
Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the ICANN Policy lists a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that indicate bad faith registration and use of domains, which includes evidence that the respondent â€œintentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [his or her] web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainantâ€™s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [his or her] web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.â€
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.
Evidence of bad faith can also include facts indicating that the domain was registered primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of the trademark owner. Respondent states that his websites were created for the following purpose: â€œto update and further prove all allegations I brought against the Nevyases as documented on my previously owned website LasikSucks4u.com and now
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.
Thus, Respondent admits that his websites were registered and are being used for to disrupt Complainantsâ€™ businesses. Respondent falsely alleged that Complainants committed medical malpractice, and if his stated intention is to attempt to publicly prove those allegations, his conduct necessarily involves disrupting Complainantsâ€™ businesses. See also Dr. Karl Albrecht v. Eric Natale, FA 95465 (Nat. Arb. Forum Sept. 16, 2000) (â€œThe Respondent intentionally registered a domain name which uses the Complainantâ€™s name. There is no reasonable possibility that the name <karlalbrecht.com> was selected at random. There may be circumstances where such a registration could be done in good faith, but absent such evidence, the Panel can only conclude that the registration was done in bad faith.â€)
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.
Complainant(s) have a history of misrepresenting facts to impede Respondent Morganâ€Ÿs First Amendment Rights. Complainant(s) through their counsel prior to the onset of litigation in the Nevyas v. Morgan lawsuit have stated â€œthat this website should be removed in its entiretyâ€1 and have repeatedly harassed Respondent Morganâ€Ÿs website hosting providers with threats of lawsuit. Complainant(s) twice attempted to obtain a restraining order against Respondent Morgan which was denied by the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas. Complainant(s) then brought suit against Respondent Morgan in Federal Court. The federal district court dismissed the Lanham Act claim because the plaintiffs lacked standing to bring a false advertising claim and because Morganâ€™s statements did not qualify as â€œcommercial advertising or promotion.â€ Unhappy with the Federal Court decision, Complainant(s) reinstated their claims in the state court for defamation, breach of contract and specific performance which proceeded to trial in July 2005. The trial court granted an injunction in favor of the plaintiffs (complainant(s)). On appeal, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania vacated the injunction in March 2007 and remanded the case to the trial court for further findings and proceedings.2 Claimant(s) allege that Respondent Morgan posted numerous false, disparaging and defamatory statements regarding Complainants are not true and have yet to be determined by the courts. In addition, facts Respondent Morgan and his co-defendant submitted during litigation resulted in the Judge ruling that Complainant(s) were public figures.3
1 Exhibit 1 â€“ http://www.lasikdecision.com/media2/nocontract.pdf
2 Exhibit 2 â€“ http://www.citizen.org/documents/nevyasmorganopinion.pdf
3 Exhibit 3 â€“ https://fjdefile.phila.gov/dockets/zk_fjd_public_qry_03.zp_dktrpt_frames?case_id=031100946
4 Exhibit 4 â€“ http://www.lasikdecision.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=33&Itemid=114 â€“ under section â€žNevyases Investigational Studyâ€Ÿ
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).
i) It is impossible for visitors to (sites listed) to be confused into thinking that they are visiting complainant(s) web site. A simple perusal of the home pages of (sites listed) makes it immediately obvious that the sites are designed to openly show Respondent Morganâ€Ÿs experience with claimant(s) and what can happen if you are not a good candidate for LASIK. The first caption of each website states: â€œAfter damaging my eyes with Refractive Surgery, Drs. Herbert Nevyas and Anita Nevyas-Wallace of Nevyas Eye Associates sued to silence me.â€ No person of average intelligence could conclude that an organization would operate a web site to show they damaged people and impeded on a personâ€Ÿs First Amendment Rights. Furthermore, there are many statements and links on the sites that encourages the visitor to verification of comments made on respondent Morganâ€Ÿs sites. In lieu of complainant(s) argument, as of July 29, 2010 the websites now reads:
<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).
i) The Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue, establishes a legitimate interest in the domain name. UDRP panels have stated repeatedly that criticism of a trademark ownerâ€Ÿs activities is a fair use, even if the domain name incorporates the Complainantâ€Ÿs trademark. See, e.g.,
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).
ii) Complainant(s) allege Respondent Morgan profits from the domains. This is simply not true. Most Lasik websites are advertisements for having Lasik eye surgery. These sites will list complications but severely downplay the risks associated with LASIK just to sell you the procedure. The same can be said of MANY doctors who perform this procedure when you go in for consultation. Most domains listed are third party sites by others damaged by Refractive Surgery, sites useful for those seeking information regarding LASIK that doctors just do not emphasize. The website <lasikinfocenter.com> claimant(s) emphasized was previously owned by Ariel Berchadsky, a New York lawyer who was damaged by refractive surgery.5 Respondent Morgan does not earn any click-through fees or commissions from the web sites posted at the contested domain names. He does not profit from them in any way. All of the links in the â€žLinksâ€Ÿ section of Respondent Morganâ€Ÿs websites have been chosen because, in the opinion of Respondent Morgan, they offer useful information to prospective patients who are considering surgery on their eyes, or to other lasik victims like Respondent Morgan who are trying to learn what they can do about what has been done to them. If some of those sites are mounted by professionals in the field, who hope that viewers will be choose their services, that is not why Respondent Morgan has linked to them and in particular the link goes to the informational pages on such web sites, not to pages that advertise the services of their creators. Respondent Morgan acknowledges changes are required to update sites and will do so accordingly (already started). Complainant also makes an issue of the fact
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.
6 Exhibit 6 â€“ http://www.citizen.org/Page.aspx?pid=2306
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.
Legal & Gen. Group Plc v. Image Plus, D2002-1019 (WIPO Dec. 30, 2002), found that initial interest confusion was displaced by the criticism content at the respondentâ€™s web site and that such a â€œlow level of confusion is . . . a price worth paying to preserve the free exchange of ideas via the Internet.â€ In Elm Grove Dodge
, FA 352423 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 27, 2004), the panel came to a similar conclusion, finding no bad faith registration or use where the respondent â€œonly registered the disputed domain names to voice concerns and complaints about Complainantâ€ and â€œ[n]o one reading the web site would be confused as to sponsorship.â€
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.
vi) Complainant(s) have presented a bizarre and baseless claim to the National Arbitration Forum that clearly emphasizes Respondent Morganâ€Ÿs claims that claimant(s) continuously impede on Respondent Morganâ€Ÿs First Amendment Rights and the harassment to silence him.7
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.
COMPLAINANTSâ€™ ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION IN REPLY TO RESPONDENT
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).
Moreover, Respondentâ€™s belated revisions are evidence that he used the domains in bad faith before he received the Complaint. See Comweld Group Pty. Limited v. Comco Industries Co. Ltd., Case No. D2001-0290 (WIPO August 31, 2001) (â€œRespondentâ€™s attempts to change the content of the website are evidence that the registration was not in good faith.â€); St. Lawrence University v. Nextnet Tech c/o Domain Dept, FA0701000881234 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 21, 2007) (â€œRespondent has authority to change the website content, and Respondent directed that changes be made to the websiteâ€™s content and keywords after receiving the Complaint in this proceeding.â€); Granarolo S.p.A. v. Michele Dinoia a/k/a SZK.com, FA0602000649854 (Nat. Arb. Forum April 17, 2006) (â€œRespondentâ€™s attempts to change his website provide clear evidence of endeavours to get around the consequences of the bad faith registration of a famous mark.â€)
[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.
One change Respondent has not made since receiving the Complaint is to revise the headlines or â€œtitle tagsâ€ of his websites, which are displayed to internet users viewing Google search results. The title tags for Respondentâ€™s websites still include phrases such as:
www.anitanevyaslasik.com/index.php?â€¦
Respondent argues that the way his websites are listed has nothing to do with Respondentâ€™s actions and is a result of Googleâ€™s actions. However, Google explains that â€œtitle tagsâ€ like Respondentâ€™s are authored by website owners themselves. See, e.g.,
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.
Respondent is also incorrect that no case can be made in this proceeding based on â€œinitial interest confusion.â€ Respondentâ€™s domain names themselves, coupled with misleading website content such as his â€œtitle tagsâ€ create initial interest confusion that causes prospective patients to unwittingly visit Respondentâ€™s websites, even if they later realize their mistake. See Council of American Survey v. Pinelands Web Services, D2002-0377 (WIPO July 19, 2002) (â€œRespondent may have a right to refer to the mark in critical content, the wholesale appropriation of Complainantâ€™s mark in a domain name, without any distinguishing material, creates confusion with Complainantâ€™s business and is not fair use merely for the purpose of criticismâ€¦No criticism is apparent from the domain name itself; it is not sufficient that the criticism may be apparent from the content of the site.â€)
Respondent essentially admits that his intention is to drive prospective patients of Complainants to his website and to cause harm to Complainantsâ€™ reputation and business, stating that â€œthe public has a right to know they are at risk when choosing services by claimant(s).â€
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.
RESPONDENT MORGANâ€™S REPLY TO COMPLAINANTSâ€™ ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION
Complainantsâ€™ Additional Submission, as their Complaint, consists of half-truths and worse. As but one example, consider complainantsâ€™ exhibit B, a July 16, 2010 letter to Alexis Arena from Stephen Barrett, MD, explained below:
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.
1 I, James T. Oâ€™Reilly, make this declaration to place this matter of record, subject to the penalties of 18 Pa.C.S.A. Â§4904 relating to unsworn falsification to public authorities. I declare that:
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.
Professor James Oâ€™Reilly
Stephen Barrett, MD then contacted professor Oâ€™Reilly, touted â€œQuackwatchâ€ and, without revealing his marriage to Herbert Nevyasâ€™ sister, castigated me, praised Herbert Nevyas, and asked professor Oâ€™Reilly to withdraw his declaration (emphasis added):
Sent: 12/31/2003 10:12 AMâ€¦
Dear Professor Oâ€™Reilly
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.
Professor Oâ€™Reilly decided that his declaration should not be withdrawn.. Dr. Barrett, after seven years and â€œfurther reflection,â€ and still without revealing that he is married to Herbert Nevyasâ€™ sister, now writes Alexis Arena to purport, â€œI donâ€™t recall the exact words, but he made it clear that his intention was to put the Nevyasâ€™s out of business.â€
Quackwatch, Quackwatchâ€¦.
Conclusion â€“ a question:
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!
One of the first statements Judge DiNubile stated was that â€œhe was not re-addressing the March 2011 trialâ€. According to Morgan:
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€.