This is the most elaborate non-fiction *whodunit*.
IMHO the missing component is a lab slide of HK$’ dark mind.
If we are correct -that this was a pre-meditated double murder - when was it conceived and by whom? I believe that is the most important date. Once that is established, every action, prior to and subsequent will make sense.
From a distance, the HK$ & Anna co-op was just a partnership to pursue and prevail in the Marshall suit. Something in the dynamics of that *relationship* changed from a mutual fund to a monopoly. What and when???
Besides HK$’ personal stake, were there any other, more sinister entities working with, influencing, or bankrolling HK$ and his activities? Who and when?
He seems awfully confident to be a lone operator - are/were there others - (besides KE & his parents) covering his arse and funding him since 1994?
Rather than HK$ being the BRAINS - maybe he was just a foot soldier!
Just pondering.
I’d vote for ‘pre-concieved’ circa Feb ‘04, when a lawsuit busted HK’s ineptitude wide open for ANS at a time when her career was starting to take off again. note ‘no trademarks’
(Haven’t heard the name Lawrence Molner lately)
full text here:
http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/220007.htm
2003 - DECISION
Anna Nicole Smith c/o CMG Worldwide v. DNS Research, Inc.
Claim Number: FA0312000220007
PARTIES
Complainant is Anna Nicole Smith c/o CMG Worldwide (“Complainant”), represented by Lawrence V. Molnar, 10500 Crosspoint Boulevard, Indianapolis, IN 46256.
Respondent is DNS Research, Inc. (“Respondent”) P.O. Box 1642, Castle Rock, CO 80104.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is annanicolesmith.com, registered with The Registry at Info Avenue d/b/a IARegistry.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum (the “Forum”) electronically on December 12, 2003; the Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 15, 2003.
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
PARTIES’ CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
1. Complainant is the owner of certain trademarks and proprietary rights, including the right of publicity, rights of association, sponsorship, and/or endorsement, in and to the name and likeness of the model and actress Anna Nicole Smith. Complainant claims she aggressively enforces and protects said rights both through her own direct efforts and legal representation, and through her authorized agents. **The Panel notes that Complainant, however, holds no actual registered trademarks**, and thus relies solely on common law rights in her name, which requires that she establish a broad
level of recognition of her exclusive rights to the use of the name in order to prevail.
FINDINGS
The Panel finds (1) that Respondent has registered a domain name that is substantially similar to Complainant’s professional name, although it is not clear to the Panel that Complainant has established the degree of notoriety and famousness normally required to give her the exclusive
right to such name as a common law trademark;
(2) the Respondent has established at least minimal rights to use of the domain name as a “fan” site and has established that it has actually used the domain for such purpose for a period of nearly two years without objection until recently by Complainant; and (3) Complainant has NOT established, as required, that the domain name was registered and being used in bad faith.
DECISION
Complainant having failed to establish the three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the annanicolesmith.com domain name shall NOT be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant and that further proceedings on this issue be
prohibited under the UDRP.
G. Gervaise Davis III, Esq., Sole Panelist
Dated: February 21, 2004