We can all assume Joe Francis, founder of the Girls Gone Wild videos love publicity but things don’t seem to be travelling with him too well so far this year. Having just recently lost his 7.5$ million defamation suit and being embroiled in a scandal invloved with Senator
Mark Pryor, Joe cannot even take a trick against a mere ordinary citizen.

A further blow to Joe (Joseph R) Francis and his Girls Gone Wild trade mark
In a decision by the National Arbitration Forum Girls Gone Wild have lost a case against the holder of the domain girlsgonewild.name The arbitrator The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown Qc in decision FA1203001435699 dated 24th April 2012 states the complainant Path Media Holdings LLC failed in its case that the domain girlsgonewild.name was registered in bad faith.

One of the factors against proving the use of “Bad faith” was that it was found by the panel that the registrant Jim Durflo could not have registered the domain in bad faith as the name was registered prior to the register of the trade mark ‘Girls Gone Wild’.
This is clearly good news for domain and website owners who have felt helpless in the past in disputes by big companies who would often make frivolous claims to acquire related domain maes knowing that the respondents normally cannot afford to the costs needed to fight such disputes.In what must have been a further blow to the Complainant is that this challenge was uncontested by the respondent.

It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and has been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.

Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that Complainant has not established that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.

First, Complainant has not made out any of the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) and has not argued or shown that there are other matters that can be described as bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression. Indeed, Complainant has not attempted to do so. Complainant’s entire case on the issue of bad faith is as follows: “By using the domain name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website.”
No evidence has been submitted to show that this has happened or how it happened. As panels have said on many occasions, mere assertions are not enough to prove a case and any submissions must be supported by evidence. It is certainly not enough merely to paraphrase provisions of the Policy. If a panel were to accept a case without proper submissions and evidence it would make the Policy a very inadequate and unsatisfactory procedure and it would be unfair to the vast majority of parties who present complete cases with evidence and reasoned arguments and who go to a lot of trouble and expense to do so.

Secondly, to allow a case to succeed without proof would be contrary to the plain words of the Policy, which provide that “…the Complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present.” The Panel finds that Complainant has failed to meet the burden of proof of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a) (iii) as it has not proved that the element now under consideration is present. See Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide, Inc. v. Samjo CellTech.Ltd, FA 406512 (Nat. Arb. Forum Mar. 9, 2005) (finding that the complainant failed to establish that the respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because mere assertions of bad faith are insufficient for a complainant to establish Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii); see also Graman USA Inc. v. Shenzhen Graman Indus. Co., FA 133676 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 16, 2003) (finding that general allegations of bad faith without supporting facts or specific examples do not supply a sufficient basis upon which the panel may conclude that the respondent acted in bad faith).

Thirdly and in particular, Complainant asserts that Respondent intentionally attempts to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name. But Complainant has not provided any evidence or arguments that support those allegations and it is impossible for the Panel to conclude whether they are true or not. Therefore, the Panel finds that Complainant failed to prove that Respondent registered and uses the girlsgonewild.name domain name under Policy ¶ 4(b) (iv).

Fourthly, the Panel notes that Complainant’s rights in the GIRLS GONE WILD mark, according to the USPTO trademark registration, date back to June 18, 2007. The Panel notes that Respondent registered the girlsgonewild.name domain name on February 3, 2006. Thus, the Panel therefore concludes that Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name predates Complainant’s rights in the GIRLS GONE WILD mark. Consequently, the Panel holds, in keeping with established UDRP jurisprudence and practice and consistent with many UDRP decisions, that Respondent could not have registered the girlsgonewild.name domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a) (iii). See Telecom Italia S.p.A. v. NetGears LLC, FA 944807 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 16, 2007) (determining the respondent could not have registered or used the disputed domain name in bad faith where the respondent registered the disputed domain name before the complainant began using the mark); see also Aspen Grove, Inc. v. Aspen Grove, D2001-0798 (WIPO Oct. 5, 2001) (finding that it is “impossible” for the respondent to register disputed domain name in bad faith if the complainant company did not exist at the time of registration).

A review conducted by researchers by the University of California, San Diego, has found a strong connection between exposure to specific chemicals and the Gulf War illness experienced by veterans. The symptoms are mood-cognition problems, fatigue and musculoskeletal symptoms. To be precise, this includes muscle and joint pain, memory problems, rashes, sleep issues and breathing trouble. Veterans of the Persian Gulf War have elevated rates of chronic multi-symptom health problems compared to those who were never deployed in the military or those who were deployed in other areas.

Up to one third of veterans were exposed to pesticides, nerve agents and other chemical exposures. “Convergent evidence now strongly links a class of chemicals — acetylcholinesterase inhibitors — to illness in Gulf War veterans,” Dr. Beatrice Golomb of the University of California, San Diego, said.

To protect against exposure to nerve agents, veterans were given pills known as carbamate pyridostigmine bromide which contained acetylcholinesterase inhibitors which is an enzyme that regulates the vital neurotransmitter, acetylcholine. Unfortunately, this backfired and the studies show that those who took the pill have worsened symptoms than those who did not.

“Across studies, significant positive relationships of acetylcholinesterase -related exposures to illness in GWV outnumber significant negative relationships more than chance would predict,” wrote Golomb. “The studies show a high consistency, with most showing a significant (typically strong) positive association. Few non-significant findings are present and virtually no inverse associations.”

Furthermore, it has been regrettable to note that some people have genetic variants that make them more vulnerable to such chemicals, and when exposed, these people are in more jeopardy of illness. “There is evidence that genetics have something to do with how a body handles exposure to these chemicals,” said Golomb. “Some people are genetically less able to withstand these toxins and evidence shows that these individuals have higher chance of suffering the effects of exposure.”

It has been found in American medical research studies that the most prescribed drug in the country, antidepressants, aren’t that entirely effective. According to researchers, they work as well as sugar pills and those who do improve are thought to only get better because of the placebo effect. “When you have samples of lower levels of depression, the benefits were very modest and even disappeared,” said Blair T. Johnsons, Professor of Psychology at the University of Connecticut. “My theory is that human beings are very suggestible creatures. The patient who takes these drugs then might, in believing they feel better, start to act in a way that actually makes them feel better. Consequently you have almost as big an effect for placebo as you do for drugs.”

This has created a debate on what are the most appropriate and successful therapies for depression and has questioned whether or not clinical trials are actually successful in determining their effectiveness. Drugs are given almost freely in America compared to other western countries where a series of tests and other treatments are approached to help combat depression before the pills are recommended. Over 30 million prescriptions of antidepressants are filled out each year around the world yet it’s not recommended as the first resort to combat depression. Psychotherapy is one of the most effective ways to fight depression however accessing therapists and finding the time for sessions is difficult in this modern world.

Britain has done its share of research and has concluded the same result as The University of Connecticut in America – antidepressants are as successful as placebos and make only a small difference in serious depression. “Given these results, there seems little reason to prescribe anti-depressant medication to any but the most severely depressed patients, unless alternative treatments have failed to provide a benefit,” said lead researcher Professor Irving Kirsch of the University of Hull in Britain.

As the USA watches the competition between Barack Obama, an Illinois senator, and Hillary Clinton, a New York senator, in their campaign to win the Democratic Party, one thing that remains certain is that history is taking place. Either way, America is clearly beginning to be open to dramatic changes and new outlooks with it’s acceptance of the possibility of a black man or a woman leading their country.

Despite appearing seemingly polite and reasonable with each other, the undermining comments that are slyly directed at each other have evidently shown that the race is on. The recent picture of Obama wearing traditional Somali clothing, which unfortunately and ignorantly reinforces the negative stereotype that Americans perceive with terrorism, has been blamed on the Clinton campaign. Obama’s spokesman issued a statement, ““On the very day that Senator Clinton is giving a speech about restoring respect for America in the world, her campaign has engaged in the most shameful, offensive fear-mongering we’ve seen from either party in this election.”

The response on Clinton’s behalf regarding the accusation of circulating the photo was a straight-forward and blunt statement. “Enough. If Barack Obama’s campaign wants to suggest that a photo of him wearing traditional Somali clothing is divisive, they should be ashamed. Hillary Clinton has worn the traditional clothing of countries she has visited and had those photos published widely.”

The Clinton statement raises questions to Barack Obama’s defensive reaction. Why be ashamed and over protective by merely wearing traditional clothing of the country you’re visiting? Yet on the other hand, Clinton has been increasingly making indirect sneaky comments that are clearly meant for Obama and it could be forgiven about the assumption that her campaign was behind all this. “We have seen the tragic result of having a president who had neither the experience or the wisdom to manage our foreign policy and safeguard our nation. America has already taken that chance one time too many,” Clinton recently said in a speech in Washington.

Another comment she has made directly and aggressively was, “Shame on you, Barack Obama. It is time you ran a campaign consistent with your messages in public. That is what I expect from you. Meet me in Ohio and let us have a debate about your tactics and your behavior in this campaign.” His response was to say, “I am puzzled by the sudden change in tone, unless these were just brought to her attention. It makes me think that there is something tactical about her getting so exercised. The notion that somehow we are engaging in nefarious tactics, I think, is pretty hard to swallow”.

By March 4th 2008, the decisive vote in Ohio and Texas will mostly likely give insight into who’s likely to win the campaign. Clinton will need big victories since losing 11 straight contests to Obama. Her fear and insecurities are prominent as her derogatory comments continue to flow including saying that Obama “wavers from seeming to believe that mediation and meetings without preconditions can solve some of the world’s most intractable problems to advocating rash unilateral military action without cooperation among allies in the most sensitive region of the world.”

When Obama suggested meeting with intimidating leaders to the USA, she criticized his suggestion, “We simply cannot legitimize rogue regimes or weaken American prestige by impulsively agreeing to presidential level talks that have no preconditions. It may sound good … but it doesn’t meet the real world test of foreign policy.”

Although both campaigns appear to be using their money wisely, making good strategic calls and try hard to operate at their best to appeal to the public, it seems the initial assumption that the inexperienced Obama would not do as well as Clinton has been underestimated. His only weakness is not being as experienced as Clinton and the only reason why either would lose is the simple fact that neither are better than the other – they are just as good as each other.

WASHINGTON, February 1 – Senator John Kerry’s attempt to block the confirmation of Justice Alito were unsuccessful. Without any problems Alito became the new Justice on the Supreme Court, replacing Sandra Day O’Connor. The 58-42 vote in favor leaves nothing to chance.

The question now is how his confirmation will change the legal landscape. This year at least a half dozen cases will appear before the court which will very well prove whether Alito follows O’Connor’s line or sets out his own. In the prior composition Justice O’Connor and Justice Kennedy were always the swing votes on many hot issues. Now with O’Connor out of the way and a conservative Justice instead it is most likely that Kennedy is the only remaining swing vote. High on the list of important issues are always the abortion rights and more recently the treatment of terror suspects.

Although it is not likely that the core ruling of Roe vs. Wade will be altered it is possible that many other abortion rulings will swing the other way in light of the new Justice. On Roe vs. Wade the Supreme Court was divided in six against three. Former Chief Justice Rehnquist was on the minority side so his replacement with John Roberts will make no difference. O’Connor was on the majority side so a switch of votes by Alito will still leave a 5-4 score.

The first cases Alito will be working on are those of the treatment of terror suspects. More specific the rules that terror suspects have no right to challenge their detention before court. Because Roberts was already involved in this case in appeal he will not participate in this case which could mean that it ends up in a 4-4 tie.

Only time will tell what will change, let’s hope they decide for the good of the country.

WASHINGTON, January 29 – The long-lasting case of Jack Abramoff is one of bribery, felons, and quite possibly a political earthquake. So far the damage has been moderate but there is potential for so much more.

Today Republican lawmakers called on Bush to release any information on contact with Abramoff from the White House. Who met with him, who called him, what happened where. Full disclosure should be given to prevent any risk of allegations. Abramoff was a top-fundraiser on Bush’s re-election campaign and seeing his track record many will of course conclude that he had influence in the White House.

Bush himself does not care much about releasing this information. He is absolutely sure there was no foul play in the White House because of him and Bush did not even know him personally. Although Bush is in photos with him numerous times Bush still claims to not have met him on a personal level. The recorded visits of Abramoff to the White House are still confidential though, there is no indication who he met with and for what reason. Bush’s adviser is confident there will be no inquiry for such information since it is not relevant to the case, according to him.

WASHINGTON, January 28 – In a surprising turn the Democrat Senator Kerry initiated the launch of a filibuster on the confirmation of judge Alito. Although many Republicans and Democrats already agreed on confirming Alito Kerry managed to delay the decision on whether the debate is over to Monday, which would make the confirmation possible on Tuesday the earliest.

In what seems largely a move with a hidden agenda Kerry finds himself supported by Senator Kennedy and even Senator Hillary Clinton. Liberal groups rejoiced over Kerry’s decision which uncovers much of his motives. Kerry is already thinking ahead for the 2008 elections for the White House and the liberal groups will be important when it comes to the preliminary votes.

Kerry tried to defend his choice by claiming that this is a vote on history, and not simply “just” a vote. He urged the Senate to see through this nomination and see what Bush is effectively doing. He’s pushing anti-abortion laws and increasing domestic surveillance, and these Judges on the Supreme Court will back it because the majority will back Bush when Alito gets on.

Whether the attempt to a filibuster will be successful is doubtful. Many Democrats already decided in favor of Alito and most Republicans do also. If the debate is ended on Monday we will know if Alito gets confirmed on Tuesday.

CALIFORNIA, January 26 – This week a new study was published in the New England Journal of Medicine which raised quite some eyebrows. The drug Trasylol which is normally used after surgery to control bleeding has been found to increase the risk of kidney failure and increase the risk of an heart attack.

Trasylol of which the working ingredient is atropinin, is one of the leading drugs produced by Bayer AG, the German pharmacy company. The drug is used in over 60 percent of all surgeries, an astonishing fact considering that this drug might be lethal to some of these patients. The risk on heart failure or heart attacks increased by a baffling 55 percent and the risk on a stroke or the breakdown of brain tissue even doubled.

In response to this new research stock for Bayer AG declined with 3.1 percent, the biggest decline in over one and a half year. Although representatives of Bayer have questioned the methods by which the research was done doctors are now advising to use the less expensive generic drugs aminocaproic acid and tranexamic acid which are considered to be safe.

For more health information please visit Bhia.org