First of all, all of this talk about law is theoretical. It is academic to apply known law and legal procedure to Luzerne County given that Luzerne County appears to have its own law that is unique to Luzerne County.
Previously, we pointed out the clear UNDUE PRESSURE on Sean Lockhart of his being a possible WITNESS FOR THE FEDs against Luzerne County while at the same time he is at the mercy of Luzerne County as to if he (Sean Lockhart) will be prosecuted for murder. In addition to this rather obvious UNDUE PRESSURE on a potential witness in a federal probe (and in a state murder trial), there is the not so obvious UNDUE PRESSURE on Sean Lockhart that his business at BRENTCORRIGANINC.COM exists at the discretion of Bryan Kocis’ heirs who are running Cobra Video, LLC.
Cobra Video and WIPO Case Law
Under WIPO Case Law, Cobra Video has a presumptive RIGHT to the domain names BrentCorriganonline.com, BrentCorriganInc.com and all other domain names using any variation of the mark Brent Corrigan.
The last time we checked the United States Patent and Trademark Website, Cobra Video had a live trademark on the Principal Register (Serial Number 78697319) giving Cobra Video exclusive rights (the trademark) on the mark Brent Corrigan in the specific category of …
Goods and Services IC 009. US 021 023 026 036 038. G & S: series of prerecorded videos featuring adult entertainment. FIRST USE: 20040214. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20061006
WIPO is an administrative body charged with determining ownership of internet domain names that are identical to or similar to trademarks. In other words, if a person or a company has a trademark (or a pending trademark application) on a Mark, that person or company can file an administrative complaint with WIPO against the party who currently owns the domain name asking WIPO to take the subject domain name from the party that currently has the domain name and give the domain name to the complainant ( the trademark holder).
Hormel Foods has a trademark on the mark SPAM. As a result, no company selling any product to combat email SPAM can obtain a trademark on anything with SPAM in the name without Hormel’s permission. In addition, Hormel has a presumptive RIGHT to any and all internet domain names that have the mark SPAM in the domain name.
Cybersquatters are very skilled at manipulating WIPO procedures, One particular cyberquatter appears to immediately initiate trademark applications on domain names he registers SOLEY to have the presumption before WIPO that HE is the legal owner of the domain name. This One cybersquatter has more than 20 dead trademark applications on domain names that the person appeared to have initiated soley to GAME WIPO. Once this particular cybersquatter failed to GAME WIPO, he appears to have simply let the trademark applications die by not responding to requests for more information from the Trademark Office
Also, the personnel of the US Patent and Trademark Office are required to accept the statements in a trademark application as factual. I once alerted the USPTO to the fact that a guy had claimed on his trademark application that his company used a mark in business on a date that was TWO YEARS before his company even existed. An attorney for the USPTO told me that even though the guy was claiming a “date of first use” two years before his company existed, the USPTO was required to accept the sworn statements the guy made in the trademark application as factual.
The position of the USPTO appears to be that any fraud or other problem with a trademark application should be addressed by the harmed party suing the trademark holder in court.
Here is an example of a complaint before WIPO where the mere fact that the complainant had INITIATED a trademark application presumptively made complainant the legal owner of any and all domain names that used the mark that was the subject of the pending trademark application.
Complainant also has a pending trademark application filed with the Patent Office in the United Kingdom. Under the circumstances, Complainant has sufficiently established rights in the (ISC)² mark for the purposes of the Policy. See, e.g., SeekAmerica Networks Inc. v. Masood, D2000-0131 (WIPO Apr. 13, 2000); British Broad. Corp. v. Renteria, D2000-0050 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2000); Smart Design LLC v. Hughes, D2000-0993 (WIPO Oct. 18, 2000). http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/145282.htm
Put very simply, the mere fact that Cobra Video APPLIED for a trademark application on the mark BRENT CORRIGAN establishes a legal presumption (a prima facie case) that Cobra Video is the legal owner of any and all internet domain names that have BRENT CORRIGAN in the domain name (under WIPO CASE LAW).
Defense Attorneys for Harlow Cuadra and Joseph Kerekes can truthfully argue that Sean Lockhart is under UNDUE PRESSUE from Cobra Video and Bryan Kocis’ heirs because, at any given minute, Cobra Video LLC can file a complaint with WIPO and obtain the domain names BRENTCORRIGANONLINE.COM and BRENTCORRIGANINC.COM (in theory) shutting down Lockhart’s business at BRENTCORRIGANINC.COM . THIS is based on WIPO’s published case law. Of course,
I don’t think even Luzerne County has the balls to call A Sean Lockhart as a key witness in a murder trial (or, to submit into evidence a video tape of two naked gay pornstars on a nude beach). However, as I said at the start, Luzerne County appears to follow its own unique set of laws and legal procedures.
You know, as I re-read what I wrote above, I realize that Bryan Kocis was probably too stupid to realize that he had a presumptive right to the domain name BRENTCORRIGANONLINE.COM based solely on the fact that he had initiated a trademark application on the mark BRENT CORRIGAN. One would assume that if Bryan Kocis knew that he could have (in theory) shut down BRENTCORRIGANONLINE.COM by filing a complaint against Sean Lockhart/LSG Media with WIPO, that Bryan Kocis would have chosen filing an administrative complaint before WIPO rather that the considerably more expensive (and considerably more problematic) step of filing a lawsuit against Lockhart/LSG Media in Federal Court in San Diego.
