TaubmanSucks.com
WillowBendSucks.com
WillowBendMallSucks.com
ShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com
TheShopsAtWillowBendSucks.com
GiffordKrassGrohSprinkleSucks.com

[ Home Page | Condensed Version | The Movie | News | Blogs | Feedback / Mail List ]


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

THE TAUBMAN COMPANY LIMITED
PARTNERSHIP,
 
Plaintiff, 
 
 Civil Action No. 01-72987
v.
 Honorable Lawrence P. Zatkoff
WEBFEATS and HENRY MISHKOFF, Magistrate Judge Komives
 
Defendants. 


DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

The trademark and cybersquatting claims asserted by Plaintiff are transparent cover for the fact that Plaintiff wants to possess an Internet domain name currently controlled by Defendant. Plaintiff hopes that, given Defendant's limited resources ("WebFeats" is simply a DBA used by Defendant Mishkoff, an individual), Defendant will relinquish the domain name rather than enter into a protracted and expensive legal battle with a prominent (and well-paid) law firm. Accordingly, Plaintiff has elected to drag Defendant into this Court, rather than to follow the well-known official procedures that have been specifically designed to settle this type of dispute without the necessity of incurring large legal fees and without wasting the time of this Court with frivolous matters.

Two years ago, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN), the body responsible for coordinating the assignment of Internet domain names, promulgated the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP), a straightforward procedure for resolving precisely the kind of issue that exists between Plaintiff and Defendant. The UDRP typically results in a resolution in about six weeks, and involves minimal expense by either party. If Plaintiff honestly believed that this action would succeed on its merits, Plaintiff could easily have used the UDRP. If Plaintiff had prevailed, they would already have been awarded ownership of the domain name in question. Plaintiff has chosen to ignore this procedure precisely because they know that they would not prevail. Plaintiff has simply decided to harass Defendant and try to outlast him, rather than to prove him wrong.

Plaintiff claims that Defendant is engaged in actions "which, if not enjoined by this Court, will continue to cause irreparable injury, loss, and/or damage to Plaintiff." However, Plaintiff does not even demonstrate that Defendant's actions have caused Plaintiff any injury (irreparable or otherwise), loss, and/or damage whatsoever, much less that Defendant's actions will "continue" to do so. Plaintiff has not been able to make this demonstration because, in fact, Defendant's actions, far from being injurious to Plaintiff in any way, have actually been (and continue to be) of benefit to Plaintiff.

Moreover, Plaintiff is attempting to confuse the issue before this Court by frequent references to "complaint" website domain names controlled by Defendant. Not only are these domain names irrelevant to the issue at hand, they actually bolster Defendant's position, in that the right of individuals to use "complaint" website domain names (which often incorporate the names and/or the exact trademarks of the companies being complained about) has specifically and emphatically been upheld in court.

Finally, Plaintiff has the temerity to accuse Defendant of "bad faith." The fact is that Plaintiff and Defendant have already reached an agreement, in writing, to settle this issue - however, Plaintiff refuses to honor the agreement (which Plaintiff suggested in the first place). That Plaintiff's attorney (acting as an officer of the court) can suggest an agreement, receive an acceptance from Defendant, refuse to honor that agreement, and then accuse Defendant of "bad faith" is a sequence of events that leaves Defendant scratching his head in puzzlement.

In summary, Plaintiff has demonstrated neither that there is any likelihood that they would succeed on the merits of their action, nor have they demonstrated that they would suffer irreparable harm (or any harm at all, for that matter) if the Court does not issue the injunction they seek. Additionally, Plaintiff's brief is riddled with factual errors, glaring omissions, and unsupportable allegations, all of which will be addressed in Defendant's brief, which follows. There is simply no basis for Plaintiff's claims, and there is no reason to grant Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction.

Respectfully submitted,

Henry Mishkoff
WebFeats
2661 Midway Road, #224-225
Carrollton, TX 75006
972.931.5421

Defendant

Dated: October 4, 2001


Next: Brief – Introduction

[ Home Page | Condensed Version | The Movie | News | Blogs | Feedback / Mail List ]

©2001 Hank Mishkoff
All rights reserved.