G0 Daddy<font color="#808080">SHARLA: G0 Daddy
Thanks very much, but I've been through this Tutorial, and can't get to the page or the Builders now. I can see you've aligned the CNAME properly, so I think the accessibility is releasing something on your end of installation/setup or configuring on the hosting-files now. I can, but a great deal of work will be wasted I want to find out what went bad or I'll end up doing the same thing again.
Thus you deleted https:// and set http:// instead, you can't use https:// without a good SSL certificates etc. and you also need a top level user interface - I don't think you know if you set https:// accidentally or if the person who set up your scripts was able to choose SSL on or something?
The GoDaddy lawsuit is filed against website owners who use "g0daddy" and similar trademarks.
The Oakland County Supreme Administrative Court granted a restraining order against natural and legal persons who supposedly built web sites and sold various service under the name of "g0daddydesigns" that deal with the operation and use of the web sites and the use of GoDaddy brands and brands that are similar to them in a confusing way. It also dismissed the defendant's application to deny GoDaddy's various Lanham Act and California State Law actions (Go Daddy Operating Co., LLC v. Ghaznavi, February 28, 2018, Hamilton, P.).
A lawsuit has been filed against two persons, Usman and Salman Ghaznavi (a/k/a Usman and Salman Anis), by Go Daddy Operating Company, LLC, along with Silicon Valley Graphics (SVG) and several non-identified "Doe" plaintiffs, for damages and claims for restraint resulting from the purported use of GoDaddy's brands without authorization. Respondents are said to have used GoDaddy's brands and brands with confusing similarities - such as g0daddydesigns - on several sites offering logodesign, businessdesign and website design service.
Respondents are alleged to have connected with Google clients and non-clients to do businesses on the basis of falsely claiming membership of Google. Mr. GoDaddy is suing the respondents for brand misuse, misdesignation of source, brand watering and brand squatting, all under the Lanham Act, and various state and corporate litigation matters. Concerning the action, the respondents requested that it be dismissed on several pleas, and Mr. GoDaddy requested a provisional injunction.
For the time being, the Tribunal rejected Salman's request to stay the proceedings against him and adjourned the decision on his request for release for want of individual competence (he alleged to be living in Pakistan) and ordered the involved persons to participate in a judicial investigation. Those claims were brought against the other two respondents.
GoDaddy's accusations were considered adequate by the courts to bring a trade mark action against Usman and SVG. For example, GoDaddy claimed that an e-mail from "g0daddydesigns.com" was sent to "On behalf of GoDaddy", that the site contained a website with infringing trademarks, and that the site was hosted by an Usman-paying bank from which it was purchased and that it was recorded at an associated adress.
Whilst the respondents claimed that they could not be bound to the violation, the tribunal noted otherwise, stressing accusations that the: Concerning the registration of domain names, (1) the respondents attempted to conceal their identity; and (2) they were bound to the same address under which several of the domain names in question were located.
Although GoDaddy filed the complaint against SVG relatively sparsely, the tribunal found that GoDaddy had made enough claims linking SVG to an associated Usman site and that SVG's website was tracked from the same SVG registrar that had tracked several of the supposedly violating sites. According to the judge, GoDaddy had also sufficiently claimed that "the use in commerce" was exclusively on the basis of registration of domains.
GoDaddy also referred to bewilderingly similar pictures to GoDaddy's trademarks on the defendant's web sites and in the e-mail communication ad serving in close cooperation with GoDaddy's own service. According to the courts, the above accusations were sufficient to bring an action against Usman and SVG for incorrect designations of source.
Similarly, the CFI dismissed Usman's and SVG's application for dismissal of the trade mark watering action and dismissed their arguments that GoDaddy did not assert that they'commercially exploit' GoDaddy's trade mark. GoDaddy's accusations, several of which included those of the accused, were quoted by the court: 1 ) sites run by GoDaddy that were "confusingly related" to GoDaddy's, which showed the GoDaddy's website traffic siphoning trade mark; 2 ) domains similar to GoDaddy's, registering confusion; 3 ) messages to the general public allegedly related to GoDaddy; and 4 ) paying for multiple GoDaddy's account.
GoDaddy's claims that the respondents had "registered, traded or used" certain domain names containing GoDaddy's proprietary or confusing similar trade names, and that the respondents had maliciously sought to benefit from the trade names, were enough to bring an action under the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, the CFI also states.
Allowing GoDaddy's request for a restraining order, the Tribunal found that GoDaddy's statements provided ample proof that they were likely to be successful on the case and would sustain irrecoverable damage without the restraining order. Whilst the respondents could not deny that GoDaddy was likely to be successful in the case against a respondent, they did argue that GoDaddy could not bind them to the behaviour in question.
However, as mentioned earlier, the tribunal dismissed this case by rejecting the request for dismissal, and the same claims that GoDaddy backed up with proof in filing for a restraining order raised "serious issues that came to mind for GoDaddy. And GoDaddy has also found irrecoverable damage due to reputation damage and lost will.
Mr GoDaddy filed a statement from an associate who explained that Mr GoDaddy was receiving several client claims arising from messages from the areas set up by the respondents. It also dismissed the defendant's contention that GoDaddy's stature mitigated the determination that it was resistant to irrecoverable damage to reputation. Therefore, the CFI ordered the respondents to "[o]perating, register, continue to use, continue to show off your trademark information, empty your data stream, generate business, use your lead or web site from a domain with the words "go" and "daddy" or a combined character that produces a confusing similar representation, such as "g0" instead of "go".
This is Nathan Dooley (Cozen O' Connor) for GoDaddy Operating Co., LLC.