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

No, it doesn't have any effect on that. They dismissed the case for lack of jurisdiction, so they can easily sue other for the same thing, as long as they do it in a proper jurisdiction

You are right. They can go ahead and sue us again, in Norway which would be the correct jurisdiction. But they have no chance of winning it here. They didn't have a good case in the US either, but they purposefully sued us there to try and make it expensive for us to put up a fight. and for many, having to fight a lawsuit in a foreign courtroom is not an option and will be too expensive for a small business. So more often then not, you'll be forced to give up.

It would be the same thing, but there are tons of examples where US courts have allowed lawsuits for a wide range of reasons even though you would think they didn't have jurisdiction.

Will this mean that more sites will go up with the word 'face 'within its wording and hosted in Norway ?

I mean word 'face' within the domain ..