Slashdot Mirror

Wrong about the 250k. They at one time offered 90k. See this page for history of the domain and case.

JSL has a great attorney (Bradley Booke of Las Vegas), and of course he did point out that the "point" about JSL owning picturebookmaker etc. is absurd. Obviously the domain was chosen for the meaning and not for the little-known trademark it "contains". (Anyone here ever heard of Sony Picturebook or ATT USADIRECT before?) I don't see any evidence that the has judge considered *anything* that JSL's attorney has said.

Boring details about corps: Delaware v. NV. These were two separate corps, both owned 100% by Joe Orr (not anonymously). The tax situation is the same for both states - no taxes paid on income created out of state. I had the Del corp first, and then got the NV corp bc someone told me it was a better idea to have the biz location in NV in case I ever have actual employees, which I would have by now, if I wasn't using all my resources defending the company against this lawsuit. I was told that it was simpler just to get a new corp in NV than to get a license for the Del corp. I've now disbanded the Del corp.

Believe me, in the hands of VISA's lawyers, one single overworked person's bumbling attempts to get his paperwork straight while writing 10,000 lines of code per month can look like some kid of fiendish plot...They also cross examined me in my deposition about dates on my resume...unfortunately for them they couldn't find any discrepancies...

-Joe Orr
JSL

Wow! Now THIS is really amazing. When VISA made the point about JSL registering "other domains with trademarks in them" and then cited JSERV.COM, PICTUREBOOKMAKER.COM and USA-DIRECTONLINE.COM" I thought that such an asinine point could only serve to backfire against VISA. Imagine my surprise when the judge cited this very point - apropo of nothing by the way, since the current order does NOT rule in favor of VISA's motion for summary judgement on the cybersquatting issue. Imagine my amazement when someone on slashdot other than an anonymous corward repeats this same thing.

JSL has registered a number of domains, all of which are under active development or will be. We have never sold a domain. The domain names above contain ENGLISH WORDS, NOT TRADEMARKS. Can you grasp this idea? Visa simply went and did a trademark search on every word in every domain JSL owns, and then feigned outrage, as if I chose those domains for their resale value. I mean, come on, look at picturebookmaker.com. For that matter look at what used to be on evisa.com. Cybersquatters don't put up hundreds of pages of useful info - they just, well, squat.

But in any case, regardless of whether anyone wants to call me sleazy or not, the EFF is NOT INVOLVED in the cybersquatting complaint. JSL is on its own on the infringement and cybersquatting case (both of which are ridiculous, and we'll no doubt do fine w/o any help). The EFF is only trying to overturn this one ruling which could give VISA rights over the commercial use of domains and business names that contain the word v-i-s-a.

-Joe Orr
JSL

The above post isn't correct.

1. VISA does not own the EVISA mark. The EVISA mark is owned by JSL by matter of common law. See this. Both VISA and JSL have applied for registration. Both companies have opposed the other's registration, and JSL is countersuing VISA for infringement of JSL's EVISA mark.

2. The present order being appealed with the help of the EFF is only one ruling in a big lawsuit.(Although it does give VISA basically what it is after). The EFF is not involved in the rest of the lawsuit. The present ruling only deals with the dilution of VISA by EVISA. The judge has pretty much ruled that EVISA dilutes VISA by virtue of the fact that it "contains the VISA mark in its entirety". Check out the ruling for yourself and see whether you think it makes sense, and what the implications might be. Link to complete text of order.

The VISA-JSL lawsuit itself is a more complicated story, will post more soon. But the current issue is simply this one ruling, which is a ruling about "dilution" (not infringement) of VISA by EVISA.

-Joe Orr
JSL

but I believe the eVisa.com guy could still be saved. The content on the previously-known-as-evisa.com site clearly showcases Passport-related items.

I think the best option for him is to buy the domain ePassport.com (if it's still available).

Doh! I forgot, he will then be sued by MS for 'diluting' MS's cross-site authentication trademark...

I guess he's screwed then... too bad.