Megameeting UK Ltd vs mega-meeting.co.uk domain name dispute (re: 2. Abusive Registration)
Why is the domain name an Abusive Registration?
Complainant (1):
The content makes accusations regarding James Salisbury during his employment at Wired Red and unsubstantiated accusations at his new employer Megameeting. This document is defamatory, libelous(sic) and abusive. Unfortunately MegaMeeting UK Limited and Internet MegaMeeting LLC cannot take any action regarding the defamatory nature of the content as it is personal.
Defence by Website Registrant (1):
The content makes no accusations regarding James Salisbury during his employment at Wired Red and no unsubstantiated accusations at his new employer Megameeting. Any statements made are backed up with factual evidence (example).
The complainant’s statement:
“This document is defamatory, libelous and abusive”
is again fatuous, as the website does not contain any untrue imputation(s) against the reputation of the complainant or his son, James Salisbury.
The complainant’s statement:
“Unfortunately MegaMeeting UK Limited and Internet MegaMeeting LLC cannot take any action regarding the defamatory nature of the content as it is personal.”
is frankly irrelevant. If the subject of the website’s content believes this to be true, then there are perfectly adequate measures expressly provided for in Civil Law under the Defamation Acts of 1952 and 1996.
Nevertheless, the Defamation Act clearly states that if a defendant can prove that the defamatory statement is an expression of opinion on a matter of public interest and as opposed to a statement of fact, he or she can rely on the defence of fair comment. I have, on record, a number of received correspondences from the public that would justify the content of the website in question, as a matter of public interest.”
Complainant (2):
The abusive content of the website is of concern to both MegaMeeting UK Limited and Internet Megameeting LLC as it is being published under the ‘megameeting’ brand – this infringement has led to confusion among some of our clients.
Defence by Website Registrant
The content of the website in question is not published under the “megameeting”(sic) brand. There is a clear and concise disclaimer on the home page and content page.
Complainant (3):
The employment ended acrimoniously. There was a non - compete clause in James Salisbury’s employment contract among other conditions. As James Salisbury left Wired Red for a competitor (MegaMeeting), the Registrant’s initial reaction was understandable. However these various contractual issues were resolved through solicitors at the time. Yet the Registrant for two years since James Salisbury’s employment ended with Wired Red continued via mega-meeting.co.uk to try and damage his professional reputation.
Wired Red and MegaMeeting are industry competitors and the Registrant’s determined pursuit to damage James Salisbury’s reputation via this website, we feel, is now causing damage to the MegaMeeting brand. Any abusive publication regarding James Salisbury whilst he is employed by megameeting going forward would continue to infringe the trade mark.
We feel we have now exhausted all reasonable avenues and request your assistance to resolve this dispute.
Defence by Website Registrant
Whilst the complainant, Mr Stuart Salisbury, states that he, as the sole director of Megameeting UK Ltd, signed an agreement with Internet Megameeting LLC on 26th April 2008 he is in fact being disingenuous. The domain megameeting.co.uk was registered on the 7th March 2008, whilst James Salisbury was an employee of WiredRed UK Ltd. Mr Salisbury and his son James visited the US facilities of Internet MegaMeeting LLC, whilst James Salisbury was an employee of WiredRed UK Ltd and on annual leave, supposedly on vacation in Brazil. This meeting was held prior to James Salisbury resigning his position at WiredRed UK Ltd. This very act alone is an indication of dishonourable conduct and motives, lack of integrity, lying, deceit and insincerity on the part of James Salisbury and hence the registrant maintains that the words contained on the website in question are wholly and demonstrably true, if not substantially true, and thus a matter of public interest.
Addendum:
The contractual issues referred to by the Complainant were only partially resolved through solicitors. James Salisbury had unlawful possession of confidential information and Intellectual Properties owned by WiredRed UK Ltd. This was never in dispute and having been written to by WiredRed UK’s solicitors James Salisbury gave an undertaking that the “information contained in a written report that he had mailed to his hotmail account” would be deleted and that he would not use it. However, in an email from MegaMeeting LLC it was proposed that James Salisbury would not communicate with any of WiredRed UK’s customers until January 2009. In MegaMeeting LLC’s defence they informed both Stuart Salisbury and James Salisbury that they were not to reveal any of WiredRed UK’s trade secrets to MegaMeeting LLC. This can hardly be deemed to have been “resolved through solicitors”.
In defending the actions of his son, Stuart Salisbury stated that “Following approximately 4 years Mr J R Salisbury left the respondents employment. It would seem that this was due to a mutual dissatisfaction in the working relationship. Understandably Mr J R Salisbury sought to develop his career within the industry he worked within since leaving University. MegaMeeting LLC employed Mr J R Salisbury as a consultant for MegaMeeting UK Limited.”
Mr Stuart Salisbury would no doubt remember that he personally approached WiredRed UK Ltd to seek employment for his son James Salisbury upon graduation. He was also pesonally involved in reviewing James Salisbury's Contract of Employment, which contained an explicit non-compete clause. Therefore, in employing the services of his son James Salisbury as a consultant he would no doubt be aware that all employees are subjected to an implied duty of confidentiality, even if not expressly provided for in a contract of employment. Mr Stuart Salisbury, as the sole Director of Megameeting UK Ltd, conveniently chooses to ignore this fact.
In order to resolve the Nominet Dispute, this information was provided to the Nominet mediator together with a very simple proposal. Mr Stuart Salisbury declined the proposal and thus the case was closed.