Facebook VS Faceporn - Case dismissed!
 

Justice has prevailed..
I have no idea what the hell it all means, other than the fact that I guess we won..

Congrats!

David v. Goliath

Congrats indeed!

love the ending.

"IT IS SO ORDERED"

hahahaha "won"

Facebook won. They made him defend himself in court.

Didn't win anything yet... They will retry in the correct court.

I wonder if FP will earn more money this first quarter with the settlement. Congrats, anyway! I guess promoting via Facebook would be out of the question.

And the attorney fees mount ...

.

In that case they will have to retry in Norway. They will have no chance of winning it here. We'll also be able to defend ourselves properly here.

Here's what it means. In plain English.

The US Constitution has a DUE PROCESS clause that covers a court's ability to haul in a defendant to face trial in a civil or ciminal case. This ability to haul in a person is called PERSONAL JURISDICTION. The US supreme court requires that for someone who is suing you to haul you into court, your activities must have at least some "minimum contact" with the jurisdiction that's trying to haul you in. The US Supreme Court has laid out a test for Minimum contact called the CALDER EFFECTS TEST.

The 9th Circuit court of appeals (which covers California) has caselaw regarding this and Facebook failed to meet its requirements. Since Facebook couldn't show that FACEPORN expressly AIMED its conduct at residents of California, the Calder Effects test wasn't met. A federal court in California can't be used to haul in the FACEPORN defendants.

Facebook can try filing the case in the home court of the defendant to get rid of jurisdiction issues.

Faceporn WON on a "technicality"

How much did you spend on legal fees?

Grats man, fuck these idiots who think you lost.

I'm predicting he'll say $40k

bingo :)

Not really. I didn't defend myself or had legal advice for the past year. The court dismissed the case on their own merit. Had I actually gotten a lawyer in California and tried to defend myself in court there, I would have submitted to Californian jurisdiction, and the case wouldn't have been dismissed, as far as I understand it.

Congrats...takes balls to hang in there and fight back.

Congrats!

Interesting indeed.

I think if FB takes this to a Norwegian court that you will be represented for free by one of the "famous" lawyers we have here - just for the press he will get in the case.

im about to register googleporn.com now! ;)

Congrats!

redirected to http://www.faceporn.no/

yes, we have been redirecting it to .no for a while now, in case it didn't go our way.

The stupid thing is if FB had just stuck in an offer for the domain and name to Plugrush. They would of sold, just a question of price.

FB fucked up by not registering all the possible names they want. For $90 for 10 years, it would of been sensible. FB fucked up.

I bet they have now.

facebook is for losers,faceporn is for all of us ha ha ha

if facebook would have hired markham for legal consult you would have been fucked man. consider yourself lucky.

probably because you changed what you had the site before, with the blue and white colors mimicing their look, which would cause a case of confusion which was probably their basis for the law suit.

they wouldn't have had jurisdiction in California no matter what the site looked like, or how similar it could have been. It could have been an identical copy and the case would still get dismissed when they don't have jurisdiction.

well done -

google already owns it :p

Whoa, nice. Good luck.

two bumps on old threads today? What gives?

is that not that different as it has the word google in it faceporn only has face not facebookporn

Yeah, it is totally different.

First of all, google isn't a generic word. It's a trademarked brand.
on top of that, his example uses the complete brand in the word googleporn.com, so it would be a slam dunk UDRP dispute.

Faceporn does not violate any trademarks

Congrats. I hope it will end soon and final!

What goes up, must come down. https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:FB

When did it go up? All that shows is it going down.

No. There was no defense. That's the point of the ruling. Read it again please.






.:2 cents:

Behold !

it is written.

Wait.. the judge will have his facebook account switched over to timeline with pirate english then spammed with all the "game requests".. then deleted for violation

When i hear the word facebook, i reach for my flamethrower!

:berserker:

https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1026141

so once more my prediction comes true


and you grasp at non existent straws to save face

Just admit you were totally wrong

Great news.

That took balls. Well done.

Good job :thumbsup

you are quoting a very old post.

And I would say that when a big company is going to fire a shot across your bow, force you to hire attorneys and force you into a court room, you've lost. They redirect the domain to .no because they anticipated that. Now the question is simply one of jurisdiction and venue. They can still file a new lawsuit in the proper jurisdiction and copyright/trademark law isn't exactly a local thing. Why is there so much certainty that "its over" - there is no settlement agreement. There is a simple procedural obstacle and can be easily stepped around.

Congrats Nextri.

https://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=NASDAQ:FB under $20 :)

http://www.valuewalk.com/2012/08/fac...fake-accounts/ add the dead accounts.

Except that in this case, there WAS NOT anyone forced into a courtroom. The whole point of the ruling was that Facebook was trying to get a default judgment with the defendant not present, and the case was thrown out because they did not have juristidction. He had a lawyer to advise him, of course, but niether he nor his lawyer, appeared, and he didn't incur any court costs. Further, if FB brings the suit again, in the proper jurisdiction of Norway, there is a very very good chance that FB will lose.



.


.

Big congrats .:thumbsup

One big question though does this now mean that any name similar to FB facecook, facelook , facecock, etc and hosted outside of US can play the same routine with no fear
even if their domain is .com ?
The fundamental point being that FB is based in US and since FP hosting was not done there , then charges did not stick.

I'm no lawyer but I think it says that the defendent is not under that Courts jurisdiction so they dismissed it. Would be similar to me suing someone in a Texas court for something they did to me in Ohio. Court has no choice to dismiss it as the defendent is not in their jurisdiction