Well, without even going to the website, let’s start with the decision on the lawsuit, shall we?
1. “There has been no showing here that Plaintiff has been harmed commercially or that Defendants’ intended to do Plaintiff any harm in the future.”
2. “In this case, Plaintiff has not shown that Defendants’ use of Plaintiff’s marks actually hindered any prospective user’s ability to find Plaintiff’s webpage or caused any confusion once locating it.”
3. “The court believes the Wyatt Website was a noninfringing parody of Plaintiff’s site.”
4. “The marks Plaintiff claims Defendants infringed were not registered trademarks at the time the Wyatt Website was created.” Now that’s interesting, isn’t it?
As to their claim of “cybersquatting” “Plaintiff admits that Wyatt would have given the domain names to Plaintiff had they asked.”
Well, there you are. If you wish, I will be happy to go to their website and tear them a new one. But you just asked for four lies from Sandra Tanner and I gave you five.
No we won't!
Proverbs 26:4
Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you will be like him yourself.