![thorsten Profile](https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/1861454185201303552/1yqF5v_W_x96.jpg)
thorsten
@rundns
Followers
2K
Following
2K
Statuses
336
be a donor ➡️ https://t.co/8No9us8gAo🩸
🏝️⛩️
Joined May 2015
RT @micsolana: nobody who loves these kids has made them sound cooler than wired has made them sound while trying to destroy them https://t…
0
1K
0
looks like was secured @Safenames
today we launch deep research, our next agent. this is like a superpower; experts on demand! it can go use the internet, do complex research and reasoning, and give you back a report. it is really good, and can do tasks that would take hours/days and cost hundreds of dollars.
3
2
31
RT @andrewrosener: Get your digital land (Domain Names) & get your digital money (Bitcoin). The world we live in currently is a house o…
0
9
0
'the Complainant provided false evidence and attempted to mislead the Panel'
#RDNH decision in #lemeilleur.com and #le-meilleur.com. The Complainant filed this complaint in respect of the two disputed #domainnames owned by two different registrants. Both registrants submitted their responses and they are represented by different counsel. The consolidation is denied and proceedings are terminated as regards . The Complainant claims that it is the owner of a US #trademark registration "Le Meilleur" and that it previously submitted successful takedown notices to social media platforms #Instagram, #Facebook and #SEDO based on its trademark rights. The Respondent highlights that the alleged trademark is only an application filed on November 20, 2024, and the document provided by the Complainant in support of its registered trademark rights is fabricated. The Respondent claims that he is a domain name investor and the disputed domain name represented an investment for him as a valuable domain name corresponding to a common/popular phrase in French that could be attractive to numerous potential buyers. The Respondent alleges that the complaint was filed after the Complainant failed to purchase the disputed domain name and this is a classic "Plan B" case. Held that the present complaint "ticks" many RDNH boxes. The complaint was filed despite the lack of trademark rights and the Complainant was aware of its lack of trademark rights; the Complainant provided false evidence and attempted to mislead the Panel; the Complainant failed to establish any UDRP element in this proceeding; and so on. Read more @
0
0
2