Refusnik or why DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary should care more about human rights
Today we look at what DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary that represents in our case easymobile.com and easyGroup IP Licensing Limited wants me to sign presumably as a part of a settlement deal.
I will go through reach paragraph and each item of Page 1 and Page 2 of the Undertakings document explaining in detail why such document should hot have appeared in a modern civilised society in the first place.
The address
Dear Sirs - a brief look at People section of the DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary website demonstrates that although not being quite egalitarian in their approach the firm employs quite a number of female lawyers (about a third in my estimate). I would have been looking like a complete male chauvinist addressing them as Sirs. This is not my style but seemingly it is the corporate style of the DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary.
First Paragraph
So far so good. However, note that if I sign a document with such preambula I will be implicitly acknowledging to committing a tort or delict or quasi-delict (depending on the jurisdiction) in the past. In other words I will be confirming that I did something wrong whilst I firmly believe I did not. This alone is enough to refuse signing this document but look at what follows.
Item 1.
Once again they want me to acknowledge a wrongdoing in a form of passing off. Not only I am repeating again that there was nothing wrong in my actions in relation to the domain in question, but also that in this dispute it is for a Court and a Judge (not lawyers) to decide who is right and who is wrong.
Item 2.
Fair enough if one thinks that easymobile is an established trademark, if one can establish a substantial goodwill already attached to this trademark. In my opinion both are highly questionable (more on this later). Besides why, as an individual I should take this obligation upon myself? The only plausible reasoning one can find is a fear of possible court case.
Item 3.
The nice mask is off. I am supposed not to use anything which incorporates the word “easy”, or any name confusingly similar thereto in trading or on the Internet ever. Particularly revealing is the following IT illiterate passage:
nor as part of any ‘meta tag’ keyword, search engine submission, description, link or as part of a Universal Resource Locator (URL) string
In effect even if in the future I decide to write a page about for instance an easy way to open a wine bottle I am supposed not to use the word easy in page name, page title, meta title, meta keywords etc, not to submit this page to search engines and not even to link to this page!
This is way over the top by all means. Stelios, DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary, wake up! The Internet is not yours. The word easy is not yours. Search Engines are not money-making machines - they are to search for information!
To DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary bosses: Do you ever read what your lawyers actually write? Well, a rhetorical question… I suppose not, because if you did you would not have let this nonsense to pass through.
Item 4.
Not that I am planning in the near future to do so, but I simply can not see any rational reason why I should bind myself by this obligation whilst the other 6 billion people living on this planet should not. Again. there is a big difference between a row of High Street shops and the Internet, the one Stelios, easymobile and DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary are yet to learn.
Item 5.
This is plain wrong because I did and I have all rights to do so. Any individual has the right to create any domain within the limits of law. I’ve been searching the Internet for weeks now and still could not find a single piece of legislation assigning all possible domains incorporating the word “easy”, or any word confusingly similar thereto to Stelios Hadji-Ioannu or one of his companies. It may be that this is the way of the future but this future is not here yet.
Item 6.
Inasmach as I am prepared to defend my right to create, use and dispose of any domain within the limits of law, I am prepared to defend my right to help others to do so.
Item 7.
Absurd. Refers to nonexsitent objects. Derived from a delusion that every domain on the internet must be trading and hence must have the mentioned objects attached.
Item 8.
I personally find this demand to be highly offensive almost as if burglars would first rob your house and than made you to carry all your belongings to their van just to assist them. If I am to spend my time transferring this domain to a third party I would rather donate it to some charitable cause.
Item 9.
I now I am also required to surrender my freedom of speech and keep quiet. Well, this is precisely what is not happening and what is not going to happen.
And finally I am supposed to pass all this to others including my family and relatives i. e. other free individuals over whom I have no legal power whatsoever.
Even a brief look at these demands clearly demonstrates that they violate a number of fundamental human rights. Not at all surprising when it comes from Stelios, after all him and his companies have a long history of highly questionable litigations and bullying and intimidation seems to be their favourite tactic (see History section for details, particularly this and this articles). The fact I can not comprehend though is how a large international law firm DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary that cares so much about its public image and seemingly acts in support of human rights around the globe (see Burma Campaign, Pro Bono Initiative etc) could come near this document. I would not touch this paper with a barge pole. Is it their true face or they just don’t care to read what they send out on behalf of their clients? You decide.
On the whole the list of demands looks like a request to first to give out all your pocket money, shoot yourself in the foot and after this to strip yourself naked, run this way across the Piccadilly Circus in London and a minute later to jump from the top of the Eiffel Tower in Paris together with all your friends and acquaintances and after this to go back in the past and bring some 20 more pounds from there and more - never, ever, ever tell anyone why you are in such a distressed state after all this. It is the same weird combination of extortion, desire to humiliate, suicide provocation and absurd demands that contradict the laws of nature.
Those who had composed this document (presumably easyGroup IP Licensing Limited) and those who sent it to me (most certainly DLA Piper Rudnick Gray Cary) must have been out of their minds thinking that anyone with slightest remains of common sense could sign such a paper. Well, that’s how it looks at first glance. Suppose, however that they are perfectly rational people. In this case the whole document is deliberately composed in such way to ensure that it will never be signed. This way it seems possible to represent this letter as a good faith attempt of an out of court settlement which I refuse. True I obviously refuse to sign this paper but if one followed my reasoning it is fairly obvious that the document itself was written not in good faith and in fact is a part of reverse domain hijacking tactic (more on this later).
PS I suppose it is a common practice to blackmail individuals and small companies with letters like this and some actually sign them and keep quiet afterwards. It is terribly sad to think how frightened of lawyers and courts they must have been…
tags: dla piper rudnick gray cary, lawyers, stelios, undertakings, domain hijacking, easygroup, easymobile, human rights
June 30th, 2006 at 12:36 am
saw this on the net thought it was interesting
Sir Stelios Knighthood Cover Up
Stelios was granted a knighthood but no journalist has stepped up to the plate to investigate whether it was appropriate to grant a knighthood to a Monaco resident tax exile who is extremely controversial.
In April 1991 when Stelios Haji-Ioannou, was chief executive of his father’s business Troodos Shipping, their tanker Haven blew up off Genoa, killing five crew and disgorging up to 50,000 tonnes of crude oil into the sea - arguably the Mediterranean’s worst-ever ecological disaster.
The Haven was an elderly tanker, formerly the Amoco Haven, sister ship of the ill-starred Amoco Cadiz that foundered in 1978. Stelios was accused of poor maintenance and charged in Italy with manslaughter and intimidating and attempting to bribe witnesses. He faced a lengthy jail sentence and liability for hundreds of millions of pounds compensation. Stelios blamed an error by one of the surviving crew. He was acquitted but the case has dragged on ever since with subsequent appeals and demands for compensation thrown out.
Environmentalists also must be appalled that a person who was personally responsible for an increase in pollution due to his extensive use of elderly ineffiecient aircraft in the early days of easyJet prior to its merger with GO. Is rewarded with a knighthood.
Tax treatment of aviation fuel as opposed to heating oil and petrol.
Inland Revenue investigators must also see the reward as a slap in the face for hard working UK tax payers.
During the last 25 years Stelios has polluted the world. He has been accused of bribery and intimidation. He has avoided tax. He has been taken to court hundreds of times. And yet he is knighted.
When is a journalist going to make a name for themselves by investigating Stelios thoroughly and expose him? Stelios Haji-Ioannou’s success? what success is that? every single business he has started has failed with huge losses of ?100s of millions. The only reason easyJet went ok was firstly because his shipping tycoon dad financed the operation and his brother and sister were co-owners. Please tell the world how successful easyInternet, easyCinema, easyCarRentals, easyWatches, easyMobile, easyMusic, easyBus, easyHotel, have been. I can inform you that they have lost a cummulative £300,000,000.00 since inception. The only reason he got his knighthood because of his donation to the Labour Party it had nothing to do with the queen. As Stelios is a Monaco resident and a tax exile he is only entitled to an honarary knighthood anyway and as soon as the newspapers catch on it will be downgraded. Or if he wants to keep it he can register for UK tax and pay millions to the Inland Revenue!
June 30th, 2006 at 1:46 pm
[…] I approved this comment although seemingly it was posted in response to a wrong article. I am not sure about certain facts present in this comment but in any case it seems to be appropriate to publish this opinion “as is”. If however Sir Stelios is indeed not a citizen of the UK - based on my little understanding of the British honours system I can only confirm that he can only be awarded an honarary knighthood if any at all, which makes it a bit of a cockup. […]
July 13th, 2006 at 5:47 am
Newly knighted Sir Stelios Haji-Ioannou is the latest person to be imlicated in the cash for peerages scandal after is emerged that he too is a contributor to the Labour Party. His recent knighthood was slammed by envirinmental groups because of his poor environmental record.