Sunday, July 12, 2015

Does Marc Randazza sue Corbin Fisher TALENT if they won't have sex with him? Hmmm..

It is so funny, well rather Evil actually, that Marc Randazza sued me Crystal Cox and sued Alexandra Mayers, and accused us all, including Diana Grandmason and Eliot Bernste in of Extortion when it seems that it is well known in the Gay Porn industry that Randazza is consistantly involved in shakedown lawsuits over copyright and trademark BOGUS claims AND that Marc Randazza allegedly CONSTANTLY is accused of extorting Gay Men at Corbin Fisher, if they won't have sex with him. This tip was given to me years ago and again recently. Yet RANDAZZA paints us out as extortionists, and as down right evil for having a domain name of his child. WOW

And Remember This Article

Saturday, July 11, 2015

I wonder what NPR's Bob Garfield has to say about his Golden Boy now? So much more to be revealed about the infamous ASSHOLE Hypocrite Marc Randazza

Check This Out

Liberty Media Holdings Wins Dispute Against Former Attorney Marc Randazza

Arbitrator cites Randazza’s “clear and serious breaches of ±duciary duty” in judgment against him (Full Interim Award can be viewed at
Las Vegas, NV - A two and a half year arbitration dispute between Excelsior Media and Liberty Media Holdings - the parent company of the “Corbin Fisher” brand - and their former in-house general counsel, Marc Randazza, resulted in an award in favor of the companies and against Randazza on June 3, 2015, with the arbitrator determining Randazza had violated his fiduciary duties owed to them as their attorney and employee, committed numerous ethical violations, breached his employment contract, and caused them hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages over the course of his employment and on through the binding-arbitration proceedings.

The dispute between Randazza and his former employer and client began on August 13, 2012, when company executives discovered Randazza had attempted to secure for himself a $75,000 bribe from an opposing party in copyright infringement litigation.

According to the arbitration’s award, “… Mr. Randazza had been involved in and
successfully concluded negotiations for a bribe in the amount of $75,000, to be paid to Mr. Randazza by the other side in connection with resolution of high-importance litigation…”.

Randazza’s reaction to the discovery of his attempts to secure this bribe was to wipe his company-issued laptop of all data, refuse to hand over the company’s legal files, seize approximately $550,000 worth of the company monies being held in his client trust account, and resign his employment from the company.

Randazza followed up these acts with an arbitration demand, attempting to sue the companies for severance pay and millions in damages over what the arbitrator would ultimately determine were “… disputed, disproved, and unproved allegations…” of discriminatory conduct and sexual harassment against him.

Seeing through Randazza’s claims of discrimination and sexual harassment, the arbitrator - a former federal magistrate judge - ruled “… Mr. Randazza made highly-charged, sexually based ‘core allegations’… which were in the main disproved or not proved.

That failure of proof undermined and impaired Mr. Randazza’s credibility concerning all of his testimony and his claims related to his contentions.”

From the outset, the companies contended Randazza’s claims of discrimination and harassment were entirely fabricated, with Randazza’s goal being to overwhelm his former employer and clients with legal expenses and use the outrageous allegations to intimidate them into capitulation and a settlement.

The arbitrator would eventually agree, in full, with the companies, stating in the award, “The evidence established at hearing was that Mr. Randazza intended that his allegations would induce the company to authorize a settlement ±nancially favorable to Mr. Randazza.”

The arbitrator continued, “Mr. Randazza’s miscalculation… led to an ultimately successful counterattack by E/L, via counterclaims in this arbitration, centering on ethical and legal challenges to Mr. Randazza’s conduct as the company’s general counsel and litigation counsel during his employment by E/L.”

Once the arbitration was underway, the companies went on to discover numerous other instances of misconduct, ethically-prohibited actions, and violations of his employment agreement by Randazza, giving rise to the counterclaims brought against him.

The companies’ counterclaims against Randazza involved repeatedly engaging in attempts to secure bribes from multiple opposing parties in litigation, the illegal use of a hacker to access [prior adverse party] Oron’s computer data, engaging in a host of prohibited conflicts of interest (including representing Liberty’s competitors and tube sites violating Liberty’s copyrights), concealing his representation of adverse parties from the company, building up his personal legal practice in violation of his employment agreement, spoliation of evidence to cover up his ethical violations (including erasing data on company-owned laptops and seizing a company-owned iPhone), and taking
control of client funds in his trust account.

The arbitrator ruled in favor of the companies on all its counterclaims, determining Randazza had indeed engaged in these egregious acts and, in doing so, caused considerable harm to his former employer and client.

The companies’ expert witness in the case, the past Chairman of the Nevada State Bar Committee on Ethics and Professional Responsibility, testi±ed in the arbitration that Randazza’s use of a hacker to illegally access Oron’s privileged e-mails with their attorneys and other con±dential information was one of Randazza’s most glaring ethical
The expert witness would also provide substantial testimony regarding the inappropriate, unethical, and prohibited attempts by Randazza to secure bribes for himself and his engagement in numerous con²icts of interest while representing and being employed by the company.

During the course of his full-time, salaried employment with the company from June 2009 through August 2012, Randazza took on numerous outside clients and built up his private practice, in violation of his employment agreement with the company.

In his ruling, the arbitrator determined Randazza’s work for outside clients was
“significantly beyond the contractually-permitted scope under his employment agreement”, further specifically pointing out such work was “undisclosed (and thus unconsented-to)” and many of these clients’ “interests were actually and
potentially adverse to E/L’s interests”.

The companies argued, and the arbitrator ruled, “The extent of Mr. Randazza’s
contractual material breaches made them also breaches of Fduciary duty”.
Included among these con±icts of interest, all of which the company argued and the arbitrator agreed Randazza had failed to disclose and had attempted to conceal, was Randazza’s representation of XVideos/XNXX, a tube site on which Liberty’s copyrighted material was regularly being discovered.

Ironically, while a full-time employee of the company in 2009, Randazza had spent signiFcant time researching XVideos/XNXX’s corporate structure and ownership as the company was considering Fling suit against them for copyright infringement.

Unbeknownst to his employer and client, Randazza would abandon any efforts at
representing them against XVideos/XNXX, and instead would become XVideos/XNXX’s attorney in exchange for a 5-Fgure retainer fee.

Over the course of nearly 3 years, when informed by his fellow coworkers of infringements of Liberty’s copyrights being discovered on XVideos/XNXX properties, Randazza would direct inquiries, claim the tube site(s) was insulated from litigation, and that Corbin Fisher material being discovered on the tube site(s) was even “fair use” - while not disclosing he’d taken the tube site(s) on as his own clients mere months after becoming a full-time employee.

During the arbitration, Randazza admitted that when company executives decided he should look at Fling suit against XVideos/XNXX for copyright infringement, he ended up disclosing their plans to XVideos/XNXX and tipping them off that a suit was being considered.

The arbitrator had considerable amounts of evidence upon which to base his findings, including material recovered by a forensic examiner hired by the company to retrieve data from the company-owned laptop Randazza wiped and the company-owned iPhone he was issued, tens of thousands of e-mails, text-message transcripts, and other documents discovered and presented through the course of the arbitration.

The arbitration proceedings also included video-taped and transcribed depositions, and 5 consecutive full days of in-person hearings.

The arbitrator would reference much of the evidence, as well as Randazza’s own questionable conduct during the arbitration, in his rulings against him.

Stating Randazza’s failure of proof of his allegations against the companies “undermined and impaired Mr. Randazza’s credibility concerning all of his testimony and his claims and related contentions”, the arbitrator went on to reference con±icting statements and testimony Randazza made in the arbitration, as well as in statements to a state bar in response to a complaint the companies had Fled against him, and in sworn statements to Nevada’s Equal Opportunity Employment Commission.

After the June 3, 2015 ruling by the arbitrator, at least one state bar has reopened an investigation in to Randazza’s conduct, with disciplinary action being a possible outcome.

Due to the nature and extent of Randazza’s breaches of Fduciary duty against his former employer and client, the arbitrator awarded considerable damages to the companies.

Ruling they were entitled to damages for spoliation and conversion (regarding the improper seizure by Randazza of client funds held in his attorney trust account and destruction of evidence on company-owned computers); the companies were entitled to recover damages “at least in the amount of $275,000” resulting from Randazza’s improper conduct during litigation against Oron (including Randazza’s attempts to solicit, arrange, and secure personal bribes from them and his use of a hacker against them without his client’s knowledge or authorization); Randazza was unjustly enriched by pursuing and acquiring monies for and to himself from multiple 3rd parties without his employer’s knowledge when he was supposed to be working on their behalf; the companies are entitled to disgorgement for the considerable amount of time Randazza was employed by them and receiving salary and bonuses, while actually performing work for other clients; the arbitrator also ruled Randazza had to promptly release all of the companies’ funds being improperly held in Randazza’s client trust account.

The arbitrator further ordered the prompt initiation of an audit of Randazza’s trust accounts, and the return of a company laptop Randazza continued to retain.

As of July 8th, 2015, Randazza had still failed to meet most all of the conditions of the arbitrator’s ruling.

The full Interim Award can be viewed at

Inquiries may be directed to

Excelsior Media and Liberty Media Holdings are involved in the production, ownership, and distribution of adult content primarily under the “Corbin Fisher” brand. Marc Randazza was the salaried, in-house General Counsel for the companies from June 2009 to August 2012.



Remember when Marc Randazza told NPR it was his hour of TERROR when Blogger Crystal Cox had a domain name of his child? And told Forbes and the New York Times and Branded her as a monster of some kind for buying a domain name?? Yet with he seems to be Okey dokey with this..

"Mr. Randazza permitted and encouraged his children to have warm personal relationships with Mr. Gideon, who they called "Uncle."


Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group has a clear pattern and history.

"The arbitrator has determined, based on the evidence, that Mr. Randazza solicited the bribe..." - Interim Arbitration Award."


Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group accepts a BRIBE? Yes Folks Marc Randazza Really does negotiate with the Opposition and AGAINST his clients best interest. Just As in Randazza v. Cox

"Mr. Randazza had been involved in and successfully concluded negotiations for a bribe in the amount of $75,000, to be paid to Mr. Randazza by the other side in connection with resolution of high-importance litigation, commonly referred to as the "Oron litigation," which had been initiated and pursued on behalf of E/L by Mr. Randazza, as E/L's counsel of record."



Also Check Out

Marc Randazza has a clear pattern of abuse and violations against his clients. Marc Randazza of Randazza Legal Group has a history of unethical behavior, breach of fiduciary duties and violations of his clients rights; and NOT just Blogger Crystal Cox.

Marc Randazza and Randazza Legal Group SHOULD have RICO Claims against them. They have a clear pattern of client abuse, breach of fiduciary duties and violating their clients rights.

Marc Randazza must pay $600K+ for “clear and serious breaches of fiduciary duty” against his former client.

Today I was tipped about an interim arbitration award of more than $600,000 against attorney Mark John Randazza of Las Vegas. This amount was awarded to his former employer, a gay pornography studio Corbin Fisher/Liberty Media, in a civil dispute surrounding Randazza’s August 2012 scandalous departure from this company, where he was employed as an in-house general counsel for three years.

Marc Randazza

The June 3, 2015 judgment was written by a former magistrate judge and currently an experienced and respected arbitrator Stephen E. Haberfeld.

The arbitrator determined that Randazza had violated his fiduciary duties owed to the studio as its attorney and employee, committed numerous ethical violations, breached his employment contract, and caused it hundreds of thousands of dollars in damages over the course of his employment.

Those violations include an attempt to secure for himself a $75,000 bribe from an opposing party in a copyright infringement litigation (Liberty Media v. Oron), spoliation of evidence, representing potentially adversary clients (tube sites that infringe upon Liberty Media’s content) in violation of the employment contract, taking control of client funds in his trust account, and so on.

We criticized Randazza on more than one occasion. Together with German IP harvesters (Matthias Schroeder Padewet et al), Randazza committed dozens of shakedown lawsuits against alleged file sharers from June 2009 to August 2012. We covered some of these cases; tech media (Techdirt, TorrentFreak) also paid attention.

Randazza is regarded as a hero by many respected and honest people, primarily for his First Amendment work (for example, instrumenting the best anti-SLAPP law in the country). However, if you purport to do noble work, you don’t do it with your hands that dirty. Otherwise you let your allies down the big way by giving fatal ammunition to the foes."


Interim Arbitration Award Against Marc John Randazza

Also Check Out


Interim Arbitration Award Against Marc John Randazza; Marc Randazza must pay $600K+ for “clear and serious breaches of fiduciary duty” against his former client

Click Below to Download Interim Arbitration Award Against Marc John Randazza

Also Check Out

Wednesday, July 8, 2015


The Lanham Act was originally enacted as the Trademark Act of 1946. It has been amended
several times. It is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1051-1127.

The Lanham Act provides remedies for both trademark infringement and trademark dilution.
There is now, in addition, the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act of 1999. These are all
discussed below.

A. INFRINGEMENT Trademark infringement occurs when a non-owner uses another’s
trademark in a way that causes actual confusion or a likelihood of confusion between the marks.
Specifically, the Act prohibits the use of marks that are "likely to cause confusion, or to cause a
mistake, or to deceive."

In order to establish infringement, a plaintiff must first show its own actual trademark use.
Defendant Marc J. Randazza, as the Record Shows, goes by “Marco Randazza” and NOT Marc
Randazza, as his “mark”.

That is, it cannot simply register and then warehouse a trademark in hopes of someday bringing
an infringement suit. The plaintiff must also show that the trademark is distinctive. Finally, it must
show that the defendant’s use of a mark is non-functional. A mark is non-functional when it is not
inherent to the purpose or description of what it is representing. (For example, "bandage" is
functional; "Band-Aid" is non-functional.)


Trademark dilution is less concrete than infringement. In order to understand it, one must be
familiar with a number of terms of art. In a dilution case, there is a "senior user" and a "junior
user." The senior user is the entity that used the mark first, and is almost always the plaintiff in a
dilution case. The junior user is the entity that subsequently uses the mark. The junior user is
usually the defendant in a dilution case.

A dilution case involves use of a mark in a "commercial context." This means that the use in
question must actually be in the stream of commerce and could therefore make a profit for the

Dilution deals with marks as a "source indicators." This term refers to the ability of a mark to
identify a user and/or its products and services. One of the most important aspects of using
marks as source indicators is the reputation of a user and how that affects the public’s
perception of the mark.

Dilution occurs when a junior user uses a senior trademark user’s mark in a commercial context
in a way that lessens the power of the senior user’s mark as a source indicator.4
There are two forms of dilution.

The first is dilution by tarnishment, which is the diminishing of the power of the senior user’s
mark because of its association with the negative aspects or connotations of the junior user’s
use of the mark.

The second is dilution by blurring, which is when the power of the senior user’s mark is
decreased because of the blurring of the mark’s distinctive quality caused by the existence of the
junior user’s mark.

In a dilution cause of action, the plaintiff must show that its mark is famous and that the junior
user is using its mark in a commercial context. In order to determine whether a mark is famous,
Congress set out eight nonexclusive factors that a court may consider.

There are three uses that Congress made non-actionable under the dilution section of the
Lanham Act. They are, briefly, fair use of a famous mark for comparative advertising or
promotion, noncommercial use, and all forms of news reporting and commentary.

The ACPA provides a cause of action similar to a dilution claim, but one with its own unique
The first difference is that the plaintiff’s mark need not be famous. It need only be protected.7
A plaintiff can establish liability by showing the following. The plaintiff must show that the
defendant has a bad faith intent to profit from the mark. Defendant Marc J. Randazza has NOT
proven and cannot prove intent to profit, as the motive of Pro Se Plaintiff Crystal L. Cox was to
provide a platform of media to parody, satire and report news regarding
Defendant Marc J. Randazza and his Clients, Co-Conspirators, Defendants.
Defendant Marc J. Randazza has NOT proven and cannot prove intent to profit, as the motive of
Eliot Bernstein, as he received domain names as assets in lieu of a debt that is well documented
in the courts, and had NOTHING to do with Content or prior use of Domain Names.


In Bally Total Fitness Holding Corp. v. Faber,14 Bally brought a trademark infringement and
dilution suit against Faber after Faber created and registered a website called This site, which no longer exists, was dedicated to complaints
about Bally.

The court immediately concluded that there was no likelihood of confusion between Bally and because they are not "related goods" and dismissed the infringement claim.
Although the court dismissed the infringement claim, it still discussed how the case would come
out under the most common likelihood of confusion test, found in AMF Inc. v. Sleekcraft Boats.15
The court most likely did this because this was the first case of its kind and the court wanted to
establish some official position on the matter.

The Sleekcraft test uses eight factors to determine whether a defendant’s use of a plaintiff’s
trademark creates a likelihood of confusion. The factors are:
Strength of the mark
Proximity of the goods
Similarity of the marks
Evidence of confusion
Marketing channels used
Type of goods and the degree of care likely to be exercised by the purchaser
Defendant’s intent in selecting the mark

Likelihood of expansion of the product lines16

The court found that Bally has strong marks, as evidenced by the amount of money spent on
advertising and the fact that no other health club company uses the Bally mark. This factor came
out in favor of Bally.

The court found that the similarity of marks factor leaned in favor of Faber. Bally argued that the
marks are identical or that adding "sucks" on the end of "Bally" is a minor change. The court
found that "sucks" is such a loaded and negative word that the attachment of it to another word
cannot be considered a minor change.

Bally asserted that the goods were in close proximity because both used the Internet and
because it had a complaint section on its own website. The court found, however, that the sites
did not compete, even though they were both on the Internet. This is because Bally’s is a
commercial site while Faber’s site is for the purpose of consumer commentary. The factor
leaned in favor of Faber.

Bally presented no evidence of actual confusion. Just as Defendant Marc J. Randazza has no
Evidence of Actual Confusion. Bally argued that the confusion would be patently obvious due to
the similarity of the marks. The court, however, found that a reasonably prudent user would not
mistake Faber’s site and the official Bally’s site. This factor leaned in favor of Faber.

Bally argued that the marketing channels used, namely the Internet, were identical. The court
found that the overlap of marketing channels was irrelevant because Faber’s site was not a
commercial use of the mark. This factor was neutral or slightly in favor of Faber.

Bally argues that an Internet user may accidentally access Faber’s site when searching for
Bally’s site on the web. The court dismissed this because Faber does not actually use Bally’s
trademark. It further points out that an Internet user searching with a search engine may want all
the information available on Bally’s and is entitled to more than Bally’s own site. This factor
leaned in favor of Faber.

The court found, and Bally agreed to some extent, that in the context of consumer commentary,
Faber was entitled to use Bally’s mark. In fact, he had to use Bally’s mark in some way to
identify what he was criticizing. This factor was neutral.

Bally conceded that there was no likelihood of the two parties expanding into each other’s lines of
business. For this reason, the last factor leaned in favor of Faber.

In concluding its discussion of likelihood of confusion, the court stated that "applying Bally’s
argument would extend trademark protection to eclipse First Amendment rights. The courts,
however, have rejected this approach by holding that trademark rights may be limited by First
Amendment concerns."

Under the dilution claim, Bally argued that there was dilution by tarnishment because Faber also
had pornographic websites linked from the site.

The court found that Faber had engaged in no commercial use of the Bally name due to the
nature of the website. The court also concluded that there was no tarnishment. In so deciding,
the court said that if tarnishment existed in this case, "it would be an impossible task to
determine dilution on the Internet." 

The court went on to point out that to include "linked sites
as grounds for finding commercial use or dilution would extend the statute far beyond its
intended purpose of protecting trademark owners from use that have the effect of ‘lessening. . .
the capacity of a famous mark to identify and distinguish goods or services.’"

For these reasons, the court ruled in favor of Faber. In the other "" Lanham Act,
Lucent Technologies, Inc. v.,21 the court did not get beyond the jurisdictional
issues to reach the merits. However, the court acknowledged in dicta that had the case reached
the merits, the court probably would have reached a decision similar the one reached in Bally.

Crystal Cox RICO Claims against Marc Randazza and Co-Conspirators

Marc Randazza, Randazza Legal Group RICO Filed by Crystal Cox