Weather Underground, Incorporated v. Navigation Catalyst Systems, Incorporated et al

Filing 201

DECLARATION by William A. Delgado re 193 Response to Motion filed by Connexus Corporation, Firstlook, Incorporated, Navigation Catalyst Systems, Incorporated (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit K, # 2 Exhibit L, # 3 Exhibit M, # 4 Exhibit N, # 5 Exhibit O, # 6 Exhibit P, # 7 Exhibit Q, # 8 Exhibit R, # 9 Exhibit S, # 10 Exhibit T, # 11 Exhibit U, # 12 Exhibit V, # 13 Exhibit W) (Delgado, William)

EXHIBITN

\.0 ctl
Ll'l . -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

'" c:

o

~

>
u

VI

~ >-

c:
c:
0'1 (])
oc..
I

NrC

.:c;
o Cl...
zUJ~

~ .~

u..c:
c..

THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND,
INC., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION,

CERTIFIED

COpy

PLAINTIFF,
CASE No. 2:09-CV10756

VS.

o

(fJ

UJ

NAVIGATION CATALYST SYSTEMS,
INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;
BASIC FUSION, INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION; CONNEXUS CORP.,
A DELAWARE CORPORATION; AND
FIRSTLOOK, INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION,
DEFENDANTS.

DEPOSITION OF
JOHN B. BERRYHILL, PH.D., ESQ.
Volume 1
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Tuesday, January 11, 2011

Exhibits Bound Separately
Reported By:
Deborah A. Brazukas
NOS Job No. 140405

1

result of him shooting the gun, how did he respond

2

to someone coming up to him and saying, could you

3

please put the gun down.

4

things are going to tell us something about intent

5

that Enrico went outside and shot a gun doesn't tell

6

us.
Q.

7

I understand.

Those types of -- of other

I thought -- I -- when I

8

first read it, I thought it was curious because I

9

thought your opinion was that domain tasting can

10

never be cybersquatting.

11

understand that what you're saying is domain tasting

12

in and of itself does not prove bad faith intent.

13

Is that more accurate?

14

A.

And now I think I

That is -- that's -- that's -- that's

15

exactly what I -- what I -- well, that is a more

16

accurate description.

17

said.

What exactly I said is what I

18

Q.

Right.

19

A.

That is a -- a closer interpretation to

20

the words that I've written, yes.

21

Q.

Okay.

Because -- because domain tasting

22

in itself doesn't provide us enough information to

23

determine whether or not the other factors under

24

the

25

A.

Right.
127
Network Deposition Services, mc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1

Q.

-- ACPA for bad faith exist?

2

A.

Right.

3

Q.

Okay.

4

A.

We want to look at what was motivating

Right.

5

them, how did they respond when approached, what

6

type of -- of safeguards they may have taken, did

7

they have an ongoing, you know, process to avoid

8

running into difficulties with others.

9

Q.

And those are issues that with regards

10

to NCS you don't have any opinion about or

11

information in order to formulate an opinion about

12

at this juncture, correct?

13

14

A.

I don't know specifically what their --

what their practices were.

15

Q.

Right.

So--

16

A.

Or -- or how their practices may have

17

evolved or changed since, for example, the previous

18

case that you mentioned.

19

Q.

Okay.

So it is -- just so I'm clear,

20

you don't have any opinion as to whether or not NCS

21

engaged in bad faith cybersquatting in this

22

particular case under this particular facts?

23

not your role here today?

24

25

A.

correct.

That's correct.

That's

That's -- that's

And that is why, as I stated before, I had
128
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1

BY MR. SCHAEFER:
You noted in your previous

2

Q.

3

answer that

4

A.

Right.

5

Q.

-- that domain tasting in and -- in and

6

of itself doesn't tell us intent.

7

A.

Right.

8

Q.

Okay.

9

There are other things you have

to look at in order to understand intent?

10

A.

Right.

11

Q.

The other things -- some of the other

12

things that we would look at would be the things

13

that are listed under the Cyberpiracy Prevention

14

A.

15

Q.

16
17
18

Uh-huh.
(1) (B) in the statute
MR. DELGADO:

l

correct?

Same objection and

it misstates his testimony from earlier.
THE WITNESS:

The -- yeah.

19

There's a lot of words here.

We've -- we've

20

talked a little bit about the history of this

21

and how this -- these clauses that we're

22

looking at here are an amendment to what was

23

known as the antidilution provisions of the

24

Lanham Act as they relate to famous marks.

25

The issue of domain tasting

l

as
134

Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1

we discussed earlier r was something that arose

2

in the middle years of the first decade, 2004 r

3

2005

4

ACPA was enacted In 1999 to attempt to

5

crystallize or -- or confine discussion about

6

some domain and trademark issues that had

7

arisen during the '90s.

r

and -- and

The

And -- and -- and I think what

8
9

and that range there.

we sometimes have in law is that r you know r the

10

technology races forward.

11

there -- there is certainly nothing that went

12

into the drafting of this statute that was

13

informed by the practice of domain tasting.

14
15

SOr you know r

BY MR. SCHAEFER:
Q.

Okay.

I understand.

But I think I

16

understand that you would agree that someone who

17

engages in domain tasting could be liable for

18

cybersquatting if a variety of other circumstances

19

existed.

20

A.

Is that true?
Domain tasting is a tool.

And -- and

21

the potential liability of the use of that tool

22

depends upon the intent of the person using itr yes.

23

Q.

Okay.

And the -- and what are the

24

factors under the ACPA which help us understand

25

intent?
135
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1

margin put a line to the end of the bad faith

2

factors as listed in the statute.

3

A.

Okay.

4

Q.

Okay.

Okay.

And the -- the section

5

that you marked, you would agree, those are the

6

factors which Congress included under the ACPA --

7

A.

Dh-huh.

8

Q.

-- as factors which a court could look

10

A.

Might consider, yeah.

11

Q.

Permissively?

12

A.

Yes.

13

Q.

Okay.

14

A.

Or not.

15

Q.

Well, the fact that -- that Congress did

9

16

at?

But the fact --

list those factors --

17

A.

Dh-huh.

18

Q.

-- certainly tells us something about

19
20

21

22

how important those factors may be; does it not?
MR. DELGADO:

Objection; calls

for speculation.
THE WITNESS:

The technological

23

context and the nebulous nature of

of -- of

24

things that -- that were attempted to be

25

captured here suggests that these were things
137
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1

that had arisen or were of concern at that

2

time; that were drawn from the types of cases

3

that were brought prior to passage of this

4

legislation.

5

which was sort of the seminal antidilution

6

case, that most directly influenced the -- the

7

drafting of the ACPA.

8
9

10

For example, the Panavision case,

BY MR. SCHAEFER:
Q.

Okay.

I think I understand where we're

going with this, so let me see if I can shortcut it.

11

A.

Okay.

12

Q.

You certainly understand these -- you've

13

read these factors, you know these factors, you --

14

you know, you've analyzed these, these bad faith

15

factors before, correct?

16

A.

That is correct.

17

Q.

Okay.

18

is that

19

A.

Uh-huh.

20

Q.

-- courts can look at these factors or

21

I have.

And I think what you are saying

they can look at other factors?

22

A.

Uh-huh.

23

Q.

Statute is permissive?

24

A.

Yes.

25

Q.

Okay.

I

think I also understand that
138

Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1

what you're saying is that when this statute was

2

drafted in 1998,

3

Right.

A.

4

'99

Q.

that the concept of domain tasting

5

did not exist, as far as you know, and probably

6

wasn't accounted for in the statute?
That is -- that is correct.

A.

7

The -- you

8

had introduced this portion of the discussion by

9

referring to whether or not Microsoft did or did not

10

pay ransom for its domain name.

11

occurring in the late '90s was that persons were

12

looking for unregistered domain names that -- and

13

then looking around for, well, what are valuable

14

trademarks.

15

Panavision.com and see how much they'll pay me for

16

it.

17

activity where trademark owners were being held up

18

for ransom to obtain these domain names which people

19

had intentionally targeted for the purpose of -- of

20

exploiting the value of the domain names as

21

trademarks per se.

22

in which -- in which this list of factors was

23

developed.

24
25

There's Panavision.

And what was

Let's register

There was a -- a rising tide of intentional

Q.

And -- and that is the context

Do you have an opinion as to whether or

not the bad faith factors under subsection
139
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1

(d) (1) (B) (i) apply in a -- in a case involving

2

domain tasting?

3

Well, the -- the -- one -- one can look

A.

4

at this list of factors.

5

factors.

6

subordinate to is it is subordinate to this thing

7

that we're trying to call bad faith intent.

8

that's -- you know, in determining whether a person

9

has a bad faith intent, you can look at this list.

10

One can look at other

But what this list of factors is

And

Or you can look at

11

Q.

Other?

12

A.

-- other things that indicate what sort

13
14

of an intent this person had.
Okay.

Q.

Let me just stop you there.

So

15

is it your -- is it your opinion that a court or a

16

jury should not look at this list in a case

17

involving domain tasting?

18

A.

They may.

19

Q.

They may, okay.

20

A.

That's what the statute says.

21

Q.

And you're suggesting that there may be

22

other factors in the bulk registration domain

23

tasting arena which may be more relevant to that

24

particular model than the list of factors here.

25

that fair?

Is

140
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com. 866-NET-DEPO

1

domain names that may be particularly distinctive or

2

well known or particularly fanciful domain names,

3

domain names -- or fanciful trademarks, excuse me.

4

That is trademarks like Xerox, which can't mean

5

anything other than Xerox.

6

X-E-R-O-X, we know what that is, that's Xerox.

7

it can't mean anything but Xerox.

8
9

If you see X-E
And

I discuss in my report practices
which indicate whether or not someone is attempting

10

to avoid hitting a person while shooting.

11

Understanding that while no method may be reliable,

12

if one attempts to avoid liability or attempts to

13

avoid registering domain names that correspond to

14

well-known fanciful famous trademarks, this

15

indicates the opposite of an intent to register

16

trademarks.

17

Q.

Okay.

So what are the factors that you

18

would look at in order to determine whether or not

19

someone is avoiding trademarks -Uh-huh.

20

A.

21

Q.

22

strike that.

23

or whether or not someone -- well,

What are specifically the factors

24

that you would look at in a domain tasting bulk

25

registration environment -142
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1

A.

uh-huh.

2

Q.

-- to add to the list under the ACPA as

3

what

of factors that you believe would be

4

relevant for a jury to look at --

5

A.

Well --

6

Q.

-- beyond the general avoiding

7

trademarks?

8

you be looking at?

9

A.

What specifically on the ground would

Well, some of them are the same, you

10

know.

For example, referring back again to the

11

ACPA, permissive factors, you know, factor six gets

12

to this idea of holding domain names for random,

13

where it states the person's offer to transfer,

14

sell, or assign the domain name to the mark owner

15

for financial gain without having used the domain

16

name in a bona fide offering of goods.

17

person, you know, who may have a number of domain

18

names, when they are approached by someone that

19

says, you know, excuse me, I think that, you know,

20

you -- you may have registered a domain name that --

21

that can only be construed as -- as some

22

representation of my trademark -- I think we want to

23

look at does that person say -- you know, as we were

24

talking about the John Zuccarini, does that person

25

say, okay, great, pay me $50,000 and you can have

Does this

143
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1

it, or pay me $50,000 and I won't put porn on it.

2

You know,

that type of behavior,

3

particularly if that person has a number of domain

4

names and may have been approached a number of

5

times,

6

that person respond to those sorts of inquiries.

I think we'd want to look at how -- how does

Now,

7

if I'm on the subway, and I'm

8

standing there and I'm standing on your foot,

9

you say, excuse me, John, you're -- you're standing

10

on my foot.

11

to stand on your foot.

12

yours.

13

didn't intend to stand on your foot.

14

John, you're standing on my foot, and I say, oh,

15

yeah, and I stomp on your other foot, with my -- my

16

other foot, you know,

17

infer that I was intending to stand on your foot in

18

the first place.

I didn't mean

Then I take my foot off of

And I think we can fairly well assume that I
If you say,

I think we can reasonably

So, you know, how this person behaves

19
20

And I say, oh, I'm sorry,

and

is

is encapsulated in number six.

21

Q.

Let's just stop there at number six.

22

A.

Dh-huh.

23

Q.

And then we'll go on to the next one.

24

A.

Okay.

25

Q.

This one indicates that -- that it's the
144
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1

MR. DELGADO:

2

your question.
MR. SCHAEFER:

3

was -- it wasn't that.

4

Uh-huh.

BY MR. SCHAEFER

Q.

7

8

My question

It was a long time ago.

THE WITNESS:

5

6

-- and withdraw

My question was bona fide offering of

goods or services.

I think

9

A.

Right.

10

Q.

-- we've covered that.

And then it

11

says, or a person's prior conduct indicating a

12

pattern of such conduct of essentially trying to

13

sell.

14

A.

Of such conduct.

15

Q.

Of such contact.

16

A.

Yeah.

17

Q.

And the such contact there is trying to

Right.

18

sell domains at a profit to trademark owners or

19

third parties as however that's defined under --

20

under law.

21

A.

Yes.

I don't know about -- about third

22

parties.

Because quite frankly, when we're talking

23

about, again, you know, this is -- talking about the

24

domain name, you know, this is talking about a

25

situation involving a single domain name.
149
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1

Collections of domain names, you know, do get sold,

2

much in the same way that if you go to estate

3

auctions, sometimes there

4

are called box lots.

5

from a house that was thrown into a box.

6

bid on it.

7

there might be good stuff in the box.

8

good, you get there early, you look in the box, you

9

see what's in there.

there are box -- what

And it's just junk collected
And people

And there might be junk in that box;
If you're

10

Q.

Sure.

11

A.

And there might be one thing you want in

12

that box.

And there might be 50 pieces of crap in

13

that box.

But there's one piece of

14

know, crystal that -- that you know is particularly

15

valuable in with, you know, a bunch of -- of -- of

16

junk from the kitchen cabinets.

17

of -- of, you

So, you know, this is looking at sell

18

the domain name, you know, to a -- a third party.

19

Well, that's -- that's not really descriptive of

20

some of the trade that goes on with respect to -- to

21

domain portfolios.

22

But looking at what sorts of behavior

23

would be indicative of bad faith, I want to know how

24

that person responds to trademark inquiries.

25

they investigate the claim when they receive a

Do

150
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1

letter from attorney.

If they determine that the

2

claim has some sort of reasonable merit, do they

3

attempt to hold that party up for -- for ransom or

4

do they say, you know, excuse me, I -- I -- I

5

accidentally stepped on your foot, let me get my

6

foot off of there.

Other things we might look at

Yeah, let's make a -- let's make a list

7

Q.

8

so that

9

A.

Okay.

10

Q.

And so after each one, go ahead and just

11

I've got the first one.

pause, and -- and we'll either come back to it or --

A.

12

Yeah.

Yeah.

Number seven is -- is --

13

is certainly relevant, the person's provision of

14

material and misleading false contact information --

15

Q.

Okay.

16

A.

-- when applying for -- for registration

17

of the domain name.

You know, are they trying to

18

hide.

19

sent to the domain registrant, you know, does it end

20

up in a -- in -- in a mail drop in Turks and Caicos

21

Island that gets thrown into a dumpster, you know,

22

or -- or does it

23

is this information that will reasonably lead to

24

notice?

25

through an agent of -- of some kind.

When -- when that cease and desist letter is

does it -- you say Mickey Mouse,

Now, sometimes domain names are held
For example,
151
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1
2

argument that it is.
Q.

Okay.

You would expect that that would

3

return a match.

And what you're telling me is that

4

as part of the issue of whether or not bad faith

5

registration would occur, you say okay, there's a

6

match.

7

okay, if we do register this --

The second piece of the puzzle would be,

8

A.

Uh-huh.

9

Q.

-- how are we going to use it in a way

10
11

that's not infringing.
A.

True?

That might be one way of looking at it.

12

You know, the -- the -- the problem is that -- that,

13

you know, we're talking about the behavior of

14

technical people and business people.

15

talking about the behavior of people that are

16

necessarily well-versed in trademark law.

17

again, with respect to dictionary words that are

18

are trademarks or combinations of

19

words, they -- there are people who, in the domain

20

community and among those domainers, you know, who

21

quite often say, oh, well, no, you can't get a

22

trademark on a -- on a -- on a dictionary word.

23

you know, what one often sees is a manifestation of

24

perhaps naivety --

25

Q.

We're not

And

of dictionary

And

Sure.
159
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1

2
3

A.

-- rather than bad faith,

ill will, that

type of malicious impulse animated by trademarks.
Q.

Is ignorance of the law an excuse under

4

the ACPA?

That is to say, is it your understanding

5

that if someone gets sued under the ACPA, and they

6

clearly registered the domain name, knowing about

7

the trademark, trying to profit off of that good

8

will of the trademark owner, tried to sell it for a

9

hundred thousand dollars to the trademark owner, can

10

they come into court to your knowledge and say, oh,

11

I didn't know about the ACPA,

12

be liable of bad faith cybersquatting?

13

I can't be -- I can't

MR. DELGADO:

Objectioni calls

14

for speculation and -- and it's an incomplete

15

hypothetical.
THE WITNESS:

16

Intent -- intent

is a -- is a key element of the ACPA.

17

is

18

What's interesting is the -- one of the

19

explicit exceptions to bad faith that's

20

written, as we continue past the factors, we

21

then come to a situation which is -- which --

22

which is quite interesting where it says bad

23

faith shall not be found in any case in which

24

the court determines that the person believed

25

and had reasonable grounds to believe the use
160
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1

to consider in the case of a bulk domain

2

registration or domain tasting situation.

3

had talked a little bit about willful blindness and,

4

you know, essentially the concept that someone's not

5

really trying.

6

A.

Uh-huh.

7

Q.

Okay.

And you

Any other factors besides willful

8

blindness, the quantity and quality of the caution

9

that they are exercising in view of trademarks,

10

whether or not they provide correct and accurate

11

information in the "who is" database, how that

12

person responds to trademark inquiries.

13

I've got on my list.

14

you think of anything else that you'd like to add to

15

the list that's not in the statute?

16

A.

Yeah.

There may be more.

That's what
But can

One of the -- one of the problems

17

with intent generally -- trying to determine intent

18

as a matter of law is I think that I had referred to

19

a -- a totality of the facts.

20

things are facts intensive.

21

believe it is more of a -- more of a jury question,

22

really, for them to decide based upon the

23

credibility and -- and what, you know, other

24

particular circumstances might be demonstrated in

25

the course of testimony and demeanor of the

And, you know, these
And I, you know,

the

167
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1

witnesses and, you know, whether -- whether the jury

2

gets that -- that impression that, you know, this

3

person was the Zuccarini type, driven by a peculiar

4

animus toward trademarks and trademark attorneys, or

5

whether, you know, these people were, you know, more

6

like, you know, operators of a -- say a fishing

7

trawler where, if a tuna fishing boat puts out a

8

net, you know, they -- there's a risk that they're

9

going to catch some dolphins in that net.

And we

10

have nets and fishing methods that have been

11

designed to limit my catch during fishing operations

12

of turtles and dolphins and so forth.

13

know, they still get -- they still get caught up.

14

And I think that, you know, we can readily determine

15

whether a -- a fishing trawler has been operated in

16

a responsible manner or not.

17

Q.

But, you

And using your dolphin analogy, so for

18

instance, if the -- the fishing boat operator were

19

to go to an area which everyone knows is heavily

20

populated with dolphins in order to throw their

21

nets, that's something you'd want to know, correct?

22
23

A.

Well, oddly enough, dolphins tend to

accumulate above tuna schools.

So--

24

Q.

Perfect --

25

A.

-- they're -- they're actually a -- a
168
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1

And so even in the Gazette, the law

2

in the United States is that every person, I donrt

3

care if yourre dumb or smart or what have you, if

4

yourre over the age of 18, if a trademark gets

5

registered, yourre deemed under law to have

6

constructive notice of that trademark, true?

7

A.

No.

8

Q.

What is your interpretation of the law

9
10

in that regard?
A.

My interpretation of the law in that

11

regard is if I was infringing a mark that was

12

registered, then I am deemed to have constructive

13

notice of it.

14

notice of trademarks for any other purpose.

15

16
17

Q.

I am not deemed to have constructive

Say that one more time.

I -- I want to

make sure I understand that.
A.

Okay.

Because we have common law marks

18

and we have registered marks, one of the things that

19

we look at in infringement cases, as opposed to

20

other causes of action under the Lanham Act, is

21

willfulness and notice.

22

once we have established infringement and we are

23

looking at the scope of liability, then we -- I am

24

deemed to have had constructive notice of a mark

25

which I have infringed.

And in infringement cases,

191
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1
2
3

I, DEBORAH A. BRAZUKAS, do hereby certify:

4

5

That I am a duly qualified Certified Shorthand

6

Reporter, in and for the State of New Jersey, holder of

7

certificate number XI 01938, which is in full force and

8

effect and that I am authorized to administer oaths and

9

affirmations;

10

That the foregoing deposition testimony of the

11

herein named witness was taken before me at the time and

12

place herein set forth;

13

That prior to being examined, the witness named

14

in the foregoing deposition, was duly sworn or affirmed

15

by me, to testify the truth, the whole truth, and

16

nothing but the truth;

17

That the testimony of the witness and all

18

objections made at the time of the examination were

19

recorded stenographically by me, and were thereafter

20

transcribed under my direction and supervision;

21

That the foregoing pages contain a full, true

22

and accurate record of the proceedings and testimony to

23

the best of my skill and ability;

24
25

That prior to the completion of the foregoing
deposition, review of the transcript was requested.
301
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

1

I further certify that I am not a relative or

2

employee or attorney or counsel of any of the parties,

3

nor am I a relative or employee of such attorney or

4

counsel, nor am I financially interested in the outcome

5

of this action.

6

7

8

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name
this 17th day of

January

2011

9

10
11
12

DEBORAH A. BRAZUKAS, CSR No.

13
14
15

16
17
18
19
20

21
22
23
24

25

302
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

~
L.{')

co

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

.-

r--. E
0,8
..-; .-

> CO
UU
J

-

J

...

0"1

Ul

N

0'1

o (])
.. (])
. c

~<l:

w

Ul

(f).3

6

THE WEATHER UNDERGROUND,
INC., A MICHIGAN CORPORATION,

CERTIFIED

COpy

PLAINTIFF,
CASE No. 2:09-CV10756

VS.

a
(f)

w
...

o.

..-;

I..-;

0...0
... N

....J

...

d'>t
I

>-

62~
c::: . .

w >co CO
."0
co Ul
(])

NAVIGATION CATALYST SYSTEMS,
INC., A DELAWARE CORPORATION;
BASIC FUSION, INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION; CONNEXUS CORP.,
A DELAWARE CORPORATION; AND
FIRSTLOOK, INC., A DELAWARE
CORPORATION,
DEFENDANTS.

Z C
I"O
o (])
r"\$

DEPOSITION OF
JOHN B. BERRYHILL, PH.D., ESQ.
Volume 2
Los Angeles, California
Wednesday, May 4, 2011

Confidential - Under Seal
Reported By:
Judy Samson
CSR No. 6916
NDS Job No. 141449

Confidential- Under Seal
1

is it being used for, I usually cut off the twists

01:43:35

2

and turns in the discussion very early on when

01:43:39

3

someone tells me they registered a domain name and

01:43:42

4

tells me what the domain name is, I usually ask them

01:43:44

5

up-front, "Why did you register the domain name?"

01:43:46

6

because that's -- that's what we're talking about

01:43:51

7

when we're talking about specific bad faith intent.

01:43:54

8
9

And they might be -- they might not be
telling me the truth.

10

But a truthful answer to that question is

01:43:57
01:44:01
01:44:02

11

what determines whether or not someone is engaged in

01:44:04

12

cybersquatting or not.

01:44:07

Sure.

01:44:08

14

But one of the -- one of the additional

01:44:09

15

hurdles that they're -- they're going to face if

01:44:11

16

it's a valid registered trademark is the -- the

01:44:13

17

constructive notice issue

01:44:18

13

Q

18

A

It's the part -- this

19

Q

-- of

20

A

For the purpose of trademark infringement

u.s. trademark law.

01:44:18
01:44:29
01:44:33

21

claims, if someone is using something as a mark

01 :44 :37

22

in the relevant competitive market, yes, there's a

01:44:41

23

duty of constructive notice.

01:44:44

24
25

But we've -- we've talked about this notion
of some open-ended duty, you know, on the part of

01:44:46
01:44:47
358

Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

Confidential- Under Seal
1

every citizen marching around.
What we're talking about under the ACPA is

2
3

specific bad faith intent.

4

willfulness.

We're talking about

We're talking about intention.

That's not a trademark infringement action,

5

01:44:49
01:44:53
01:44:56
01:44:59
01:45:02

6

for which purpose, yeah, we do have a -- you know,

01:45:05

7

you do have constructive notice.

01:45:10

8
9

Q

Now, in this sentence we were talking where

you talked about:
"So, you know, if one knows

10

01:45:11
01:45:15
01:45:15

11

that one's traffic is coming

01:45:17

12

primarily from trademark typos ... "

01:45:18

13

I want to talk about that notion because

01:45:20

14

we've kind of shifted from just looking at the

01:45:22

15

domain name itself, and now we're looking apparently

01:45:24

16

at the traffic that's coming to your website on that

01:45:27

17

domain name.

01:45:30

18

A

We're drilling -- we're drilling down

01:45:30

19

into a situation that was set up by your

01:45:34

20

intentionally registering typographic variations.

01:45:40

21
22

23
24
25

A

Sure.

01:45:43

So how does one know --

Q

01:45:44

So if you know that's where -- because you

01:45:44

were intentionally doing it.
Q

Okay.

Does it -- so is one of the ways

01:45:46
01:45:47
359

Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

Confidential- Under Seal

1

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

2

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

ss:

3

4

I, JUDY SAMSON, do hereby certify:

5

That I am a duly qualified Certified Shorthand

6

Reporter, in and for the State of California, holder of

7

certificate number 6916, which is in full force and

8

effect and that I am authorized to administer oaths and

9

affirmations;

10

That the foregoing deposition testimony of the

11

herein named witness was taken before me at the time and

12

place herein set forth;

13

That prior to being examined, the witness named

14

in the foregoing deposition, was duly sworn or affirmed

15

by me, to testify the truth, the whole truth, and

16

nothing but the truth;

17

That the testimony of the witness and all

18

objections made at the time of the examination were

19

recorded stenographically by me, and were thereafter

20

transcribed under my direction and supervision;

21

That the foregoing pages contain a full, true

22

and accurate record of the proceedings and testimony to

23

the best of my skill and ability;

24
25

That prior to the completion of the foregoing
deposition, review of the transcript was requested.
377
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO

Confidential - Under Seal

1

I further certify that I am not a relative or

2

employee or attorney or counsel of any of the parties,

3

nor am I a relative or employee of such attorney or

4

counsel, nor am I financially interested in the outcome

5

of this action.

6
7
8

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have subscribed my name
this 17th day of _M_a_y
__________

2011

9

10
11
12

JUDY SAMSON, CSR No. 6916

13
14
15
16

17
18
19
20

21
22
23

24

25
378
Network Deposition Services, Inc .• networkdepo.com • 866-NET-DEPO