Reblogged from The Legal Satyricon:
Those of you who recall this post about Crystal Cox will find the following document of interest.
Randazza v. Cox - Decision D2012-1525
Naturally, I would find the opinion to be a good one, as the Panel found in my favor. However, the Panelist seems to have really gotten the whole point of Crystal Cox's extortion scheme -- something that prior panels dealing with her failed to do.
Jordan's commentary:
Earlier this year, Crystal Cox claimed that the WIPO endorsed her practice of the buying domain names of her enemies, Google-bombing them with her rants, and then offering to clean it up for a fee. Crystal gained notoriety when she did this to Marc Randazza, his wife, and their three year old daughter.
At the time, Crystal may have been right, as she beat Proskauer in a WIPO dispute for proskauerlawfirm.com. However, today the WIPO found that "Basically, for a price, [Crystal Cox] would undo the injury to the Complainant for which she was responsible for having created in the first place." Accordingly, Crystal Cox's "egregious conduct clearly constitutes bad faith under the Policy."
BOOM.
