Proceedings: (In Chambers) Order GRANTING in Part and DENYING in Part the

Motions to Dismiss - The Honorable Philip S. Gutierrez, United States District Judge.

-----

Since this Court's Order was issued back in August of this year, commentators have taken different approaches to the significance of this ruling in the case by Judge Guiterrez. Is this the beginning of the end of new Top Level Domains (TLD's); or is the case yet to reach the merits -- or lack thereof -- at this juncture due to procedural pleading standards that generally and somewhat generously allow claims at least pled properly to proceed to discovery and further law and motion phases in litigation? (Take a look at the Court Order yourself and see what you make of it.)

See for example, the coverage of the case by The Domains "Court Uses Case Of CFIT Vs. Verisign To Hammer ICM’s & ICANN’s Motion To Dismiss Manwin Claims" a day after the court rulings on August 15, 2012 located at http://www.thedomains.com/2012/08/15/court-uses-case-of-cfit-vs-verisign-to-hammer-icms-icanns-motion-to-dismiss-manwin-claim/

Then take a look at the other sort of takes that have emerged on the case, one for example, by gTLD Stratey (a Fair Wins blog) "ICANN Armageddon or Much Ado about Nothing? – Manwin v. ICM and ICANN" penned a couple months ago on September 6, 2012 located at http://www.gtldstrategy.com/policy-updates/icann-armageddon-or-much-ado-about-nothing-%E2%80%93-manwin-v-icm-and-icann

After the past couple months or so following Judge Guiterrez attached ruling dismissing certain claims but allowing others to go forward as noted, several other commentators within the legal community have began to weigh in on the litigation. See one of example of this that came out yesterday (11/02/2012) from the Ifrah law blog "FTC Beat" -- Judge’s Ruling on Antitrust Complaint Has Implications Far Beyond the .xxx Domain -- located at http://ftcbeat.com/2012/11/02/judges-ruling-on-antitrust-complaint-has-implications-far-beyond-the-xxx-domain/?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=731679&utm_campaign=0

In any event, as noted by Fair Winds, this case may indeed be a wake-up call to ICANN regardless of whether the Manwin claims ultimately prevail or not.

-IJI