Don Moody

Don Moody

Domain Name & IP attorney in Los Angeles, co-founder of New gTLD Disputes
Joined on November 14, 2007
Total Post Views: 36,968


<stong>Don Moody</strong> is a Los Angeles-based attorney specializing in intellectual property rights enforcement and technology-oriented legal issues. The practice involves protecting all forms of intellectual property (patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, celebrity names and likenesses) on the Internet, in software, electronic devices, on video game platforms and other digital environments.

Mr. Moody has extensive expertise in domain name related matters, having represented clients in domain-related arbitration proceedings in both the U.S. and international forums. He is also highly knowledgeable in matters involving online fraud and ‘phishing’ schemes, “big data” analytics, online privacy, enforcement of the CAN-SPAM Act (and/or its state law equivalents), disputes involving open source software, and the efficient management and production of electronic evidence.

Mr. Moody holds a law degree from UCLA and a Master of Science in Computer Information Systems from Boston University. He is admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office; trial and appellate courts in California and Washington D.C.; U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Central, and Southern Districts of California and the Eastern District of Texas; U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Ninth and Federal Circuits; the U.S. Court of Federal Claims; and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Don can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

Except where otherwise noted, all postings by Don Moody on CircleID are licensed under a Creative Commons License.

Featured Blogs

Thinking Carefully About New gTLD Objections: Legal Rights (4 of 4)

This last article on the four new gTLD objections will look at the Legal Rights Objection ("LRO"). While other articles in this series have touched on trademark concepts at certain points, issues from that area of the law predominate in LRO. Here we review the pertinent LRO-related trademark concepts, with which many readers likely will have some familiarity from working with domains and the UDRP. Still, the theme of the first three articles applies here: Potential objections are more involved and complicated than they may seem, and require careful thought if they are to be made. more

Thinking Carefully About New gTLD Objections: Community (3 of 4)

My third installment regarding gTLD objections - and understanding exactly what's required for an objector to prevail - moves to the more complex community-based objections. For those getting their first exposure to this unwieldy beast, pull up a chair and get comfortable. The community objection involves multifaceted elements, each having its own set of defining factors and often using similar terminology in different contexts. As such, it can be very confusing and one can easily lose track of the bigger picture. more

Thinking Carefully About New gTLD Objections: Limited Public Interest (Part 2 of 4)

The second installment in my four-part series on New gTLD objections will focus on the limited public interest ("LPI") variety. The overarching theme however is essentially the same: new gTLD objections are generally more complicated (and costly) than UDRP actions and need to be approached with care. In fact, LPI represents one of the best examples of the tough climb that would-be objectors are likely to face. Understanding exactly what is required beforehand - and whether or not you can deliver - is absolutely critical. more

Thinking Carefully About New gTLD Objections: String Confusion (Part 1 of 4)

Since speaking last fall on community-based TLDs at the New gTLD Summit in Los Angeles, I have been asked a number of times to provide input on the objections ICANN allows in its New gTLD Applicant Guidebook ("AGB" or simply the "Guidebook"). As the March 13 deadline approaches, I now present the first of a series of four spotlight articles on the subject -- one on each of the four permissible grounds for objection. more