Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.

Filing 51

DECLARATION OF JOHN L. SLAFSKY IN SUPPORT OF 50 DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND FOR AN ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF LIABLE FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES filed byGoDaddy.com, Inc. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B)(Related document(s) 50 ) (Slafsky, John) (Filed on 8/3/2010) Modified on 8/4/2010 (cjl, COURT STAFF).

Petroliam Nasional Berhad v. GoDaddy.com, Inc.

Doc. 51

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

JOHN L. SLAFSKY, State Bar No. 195513 DAVID H. KRAMER, State Bar No. 168452 HOLLIS BETH HIRE, State Bar No. 203651 WILSON SONSINI GOODRICH & ROSATI Professional Corporation 650 Page Mill Road Palo Alto, CA 94304-1050 Telephone: [phone] Facsimile: [phone] [e-mail] [e-mail] [e-mail] Attorneys for Defendant GoDaddy.com, Inc. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

CASE NO.: 09-CV-5939 PJH DECLARATION OF JOHN L. SLAFSKY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND FOR AN ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF LIABLE FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES DATE: September 8, 2010 TIME: 9:00 a.m. JUDGE: Hon. Phyllis J. Hamilton

Petroliam Nasional Berhad, Plaintiff, vs. GoDaddy.com, Inc., Defendant. I, John L. Slafsky, declare: 1.

I am an attorney admitted to practice law before this Court, and am a member of

the law firm of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., counsel for Defendant GoDaddy.com, Inc. ("Go Daddy"). I have personal knowledge of the facts set forth in this Declaration 2. On July 29, 2010, I contacted Perry Clark, counsel for Plaintiff Petroliam Nasional

Berhad ("Plaintiff"), to request a conference pursuant to Local Rule 54-5. On August 3, 2010, I had a telephone conference with Mr. Clark. During this conference I informed Mr. Clark that

SLAFSKY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT"S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND FOR AN ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF LIABLE FOR FEES Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH
Dockets.Justia.com

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Go Daddy planned to file a motion for attorneys' fees under the Lanham Act. The parties were unable to resolve the dispute underlying this motion. 3. The Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy ("UDRP") generally

provides a faster, cheaper option for trademark owners seeking transfer of a domain name. I have attached as Exhibit A true and correct copies of the WIPO Guide to the UDRP, printed from the World Intellectual Property Organization ("WIPO") website on August 2, 2010. This document: · at page 4-5 describes the advantages of a UDRP proceeding: "The main advantage of the UDRP Administrative Procedure is that it typically provides a faster and cheaper way to resolve a dispute regarding the registration and use of an Internet domain name than going to court;" · at page 6 provides an estimate of the time to complete a UDRP proceeding: "The Administrative Procedure normally should be completed within 60 days of the date the WIPO Center receives the Complaint." 4. I have attached as Exhibit B a true and correct copy of an additional page printed

from the WIPO website on August 2, 2010. This page is titled "Case Outcome Statistics," and shows that the domain name at issue in a UDRP proceeding was transferred in 84.15% of cases, and cancelled 1.35% of the time. The trademark owner's complaint was denied only 14.49% of the time. 5. During the pendency of the present action, I have informed Mr. Clark of the likely

benefits of the UDRP no less than five times: at the hearing on Plaintiff's failed request for a temporary restraining order, during both conferences with counsel regarding the joint case management conference statements in this case, and during several other telephone conferences. 6. At the time of the first Case Management Conference in this case, Plaintiff's

counsel indicated to Go Daddy and to the Court that it would be willing to dismiss this action when the <petronastower.net> domain name was transferred in connection with the in rem proceeding. However, Plaintiff subsequently changed its position when it learned that the same -2SLAFSKY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT"S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND FOR AN ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF LIABLE FOR FEES Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

registrant had registered a second domain name: <petronastowers.net>. Again, instead of filing a UDRP action against the registrant of the domain name, Plaintiff sent a demand letter to Go Daddy ­ just as it did with the <petronastower.net> domain name ­ demanding that Go Daddy "disable" the website. Go Daddy responded as it did before ­ it notified Plaintiff that Go Daddy was not in a position to resolve this dispute, and suggested that Plaintiff direct its request to the registrant or address its concerns through a proper administrative or court proceeding. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at Palo Alto, California, on August 3, 2010. By: /s/ John L. Slafsky John L. Slafsky .

-3SLAFSKY DECLARATION IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT"S MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS AND FOR AN ORDER FINDING PLAINTIFF LIABLE FOR FEES Case No: 09-CV-5939 PJH