<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" media="screen" href="/~d/styles/atom10full.xsl"?><?xml-stylesheet type="text/css" media="screen" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~d/styles/itemcontent.css"?><feed xmlns="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:openSearch="http://a9.com/-/spec/opensearch/1.1/" xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:gd="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005" xmlns:thr="http://purl.org/syndication/thread/1.0" xmlns:feedburner="http://rssnamespace.org/feedburner/ext/1.0" gd:etag="W/&quot;CUcCRHkzeCp7ImA9WhRaFEg.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222385724820763530</id><updated>2012-02-16T20:31:05.780-08:00</updated><title>Case Stories</title><subtitle type="html" /><link rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#feed" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://uscaselaw.blogspot.com/feeds/posts/default" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://uscaselaw.blogspot.com/" /><author><name>Case Law</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18346974025452914640</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><generator version="7.00" uri="http://www.blogger.com">Blogger</generator><openSearch:totalResults>1</openSearch:totalResults><openSearch:startIndex>1</openSearch:startIndex><openSearch:itemsPerPage>25</openSearch:itemsPerPage><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://feeds.feedburner.com/CaseLaw" /><feedburner:info uri="caselaw" /><atom10:link xmlns:atom10="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" rel="hub" href="http://pubsubhubbub.appspot.com/" /><entry gd:etag="W/&quot;CEMCSHo-eip7ImA9WxFUGUk.&quot;"><id>tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8222385724820763530.post-7244893911885042450</id><published>2010-06-30T17:01:00.002-07:00</published><updated>2010-06-30T17:01:09.452-07:00</updated><app:edited xmlns:app="http://www.w3.org/2007/app">2010-06-30T17:01:09.452-07:00</app:edited><title>$65 Million Judgement Against a Con Who Stole domain name of sex.com. The Con Didn't  Pay and Still At Large</title><content type="html">&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;“Sex on the Internet?,” they all said. “That’ll never make&amp;nbsp;any money.” But computer-geek-turned-entrepreneur Gary&amp;nbsp;Kremen knew an opportunity when he saw it. The year was&amp;nbsp;1994; domain names were free for the asking, and it would be&amp;nbsp;several years yet before Henry Blodget and hordes of eager&amp;nbsp;NASDAQ day traders would turn the Internet into the Dutch&amp;nbsp;tulip craze of our times. With a quick e-mail to the domain&amp;nbsp;name registrar Network Solutions, Kremen became the proud&amp;nbsp;owner of sex.com. He registered the name to his business,&amp;nbsp;Online Classifieds, and listed himself as the contact.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;Con man Stephen Cohen, meanwhile, was doing time for&amp;nbsp;impersonating a bankruptcy lawyer. He, too, saw the potential&amp;nbsp;of the domain name. Kremen had gotten it first, but that was&amp;nbsp;only a minor impediment for a man of Cohen’s boundless&amp;nbsp;resource and bounded integrity. Once out of prison, he sent&amp;nbsp;Network Solutions what purported to be a letter he had&amp;nbsp;received from Online Classifieds. It claimed the company had&amp;nbsp;been “forced to dismiss Mr. Kremen,” but “never got around&amp;nbsp;to changing our administrative contact with the internet registration&amp;nbsp;[sic] and now our Board of directors has decided to&amp;nbsp;abandon the domain name sex.com.” Why was this unusual&amp;nbsp;letter being sent via Cohen rather than to Network Solutions&amp;nbsp;directly? It explained:&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;Because we do not have a direct connection to the&amp;nbsp;internet, we request that you notify the internet registration&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;on our behalf, to delete our domain name&amp;nbsp;sex.com. Further, we have no objections to your use&amp;nbsp;of the domain name sex.com and this letter shall&amp;nbsp;serve as our authorization to the internet registration&amp;nbsp;to transfer sex.com to your corporation.2&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;Despite the letter’s transparent claim that a company called&amp;nbsp;“Online Classifieds” had no Internet connection, Network&amp;nbsp;Solutions made no effort to contact Kremen. Instead, it&amp;nbsp;accepted the letter at face value and transferred the domain name&amp;nbsp;to Cohen. When Kremen contacted Network Solutions&amp;nbsp;some time later, he was told it was too late to undo the transfer.&amp;nbsp;Cohen went on to turn sex.com into a lucrative online&amp;nbsp;porn empire.&amp;nbsp;And so began Kremen’s quest to recover the domain name&amp;nbsp;that was rightfully his. He sued Cohen and several affiliated&amp;nbsp;companies in federal court, seeking return of the domain&amp;nbsp;name and disgorgement of Cohen’s profits.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;The district court&amp;nbsp;found that the letter was indeed a forgery and ordered the&amp;nbsp;domain name returned to Kremen. It also told Cohen to hand&amp;nbsp;over his profits.&amp;nbsp;It awarded $40 million in compensatory&amp;nbsp;damages and another $25 million in punitive damages.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;Kremen, unfortunately, has not had much luck collecting&amp;nbsp;his judgment. The district court froze Cohen’s assets, but&amp;nbsp;Cohen ignored the order and wired large sums of money to&amp;nbsp;offshore accounts. His real estate property, under the protection&amp;nbsp;of a federal receiver, was stripped of all its fixtures—&amp;nbsp;even cabinet doors and toilets—in violation of another order.&amp;nbsp;The court commanded Cohen to appear and show cause why&amp;nbsp;he shouldn’t be held in contempt, but he ignored that order,&amp;nbsp;too. The district judge finally took off the gloves—he&amp;nbsp;declared Cohen a fugitive from justice, signed an arrest warrant&amp;nbsp;and sent the U.S. Marshals after him.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;Then things started getting really bizarre. Kremen put up a&amp;nbsp;“wanted” poster on the sex.com site with a mug shot of&amp;nbsp;Cohen, offering a $50,000 reward to anyone who brought him&amp;nbsp;to justice. Cohen’s lawyers responded with a motion to vacate&amp;nbsp;the arrest warrant. They reported that Cohen was under house&amp;nbsp;arrest in Mexico and that gunfights between Mexican authorities&amp;nbsp;and would-be bounty hunters seeking Kremen’s reward&amp;nbsp;money posed a threat to human life. The district court rejected&amp;nbsp;this story as “implausible” and denied the motion. Cohen, so&amp;nbsp;far as the record shows, remains at large.&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;&lt;i&gt;KREMEN v. NETWORK SOLUTIONS, INC.(9th Cir., 2003)&lt;/i&gt;&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div style="margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px;"&gt;&lt;br /&gt;
&lt;/div&gt;&lt;div class="blogger-post-footer"&gt;&lt;img width='1' height='1' src='https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/tracker/8222385724820763530-7244893911885042450?l=uscaselaw.blogspot.com' alt='' /&gt;&lt;/div&gt;
&lt;p&gt;&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/k9_HsVPrLvWlb9f8nLZjyz6k_nA/0/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/k9_HsVPrLvWlb9f8nLZjyz6k_nA/0/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/k9_HsVPrLvWlb9f8nLZjyz6k_nA/1/da"&gt;&lt;img src="http://feedads.g.doubleclick.net/~a/k9_HsVPrLvWlb9f8nLZjyz6k_nA/1/di" border="0" ismap="true"&gt;&lt;/img&gt;&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p&gt;&lt;img src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~r/CaseLaw/~4/i4brwrFJJrE" height="1" width="1"/&gt;</content><link rel="replies" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://uscaselaw.blogspot.com/feeds/7244893911885042450/comments/default" title="Post Comments" /><link rel="replies" type="text/html" href="http://uscaselaw.blogspot.com/2010/06/65-million-judgement-against-con-who.html#comment-form" title="0 Comments" /><link rel="edit" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8222385724820763530/posts/default/7244893911885042450?v=2" /><link rel="self" type="application/atom+xml" href="http://www.blogger.com/feeds/8222385724820763530/posts/default/7244893911885042450?v=2" /><link rel="alternate" type="text/html" href="http://feedproxy.google.com/~r/CaseLaw/~3/i4brwrFJJrE/65-million-judgement-against-con-who.html" title="$65 Million Judgement Against a Con Who Stole domain name of sex.com. The Con Didn't  Pay and Still At Large" /><author><name>Case Law</name><uri>http://www.blogger.com/profile/18346974025452914640</uri><email>noreply@blogger.com</email><gd:image rel="http://schemas.google.com/g/2005#thumbnail" width="16" height="16" src="http://img2.blogblog.com/img/b16-rounded.gif" /></author><thr:total>0</thr:total><feedburner:origLink>http://uscaselaw.blogspot.com/2010/06/65-million-judgement-against-con-who.html</feedburner:origLink></entry></feed>

