SPEAKS OUT AGAINST THE LASIK:
Dr. Machat was to testify against another LASIK surgeon to help a hurt patient. Because he testified, he was disparaged, fired, and was basically "out of a career" and mocked by peers:
"Have you been cursed?" Schmidt asked."Yes."
"Verbally assaulted - at the [ASCRS] conference, for example?" "Yes."
"As a result of this, have you been asked to resign from the advisory board of TLC?" "Yes."
The surgeons obtained an administrative decision from the National "Arbitration" Forum that took away his domain names on grounds of trademark infringement. Invoking the many court decisions from around the country that have held that domain names about a trademark holder may use the trademark holder's name, decisions that the NAF panelist refused to consider, Public Citizen is representing Morgan in a declaratory judgment action seeking a ruling that his domain names represent non-commercial free speech, truthfully denoting the topic of his web sites.
After the suit for a declaratory action was filed, the Nevyases lost their taste for enforcing their trademark claims given the changes that had been made to the sites during the UDRP proceedings. The Nevyases agreed to a consent order giving up their legal claims.
The consent order is available at the link below:
On January 16, 2013, I sent the following to Professor Wilson who ruled on the Nevyas complaint (no response of course):
Dear Professor Wilson,
Your decision as with all decisions the National Arbitration Forum has ruled upon hopefully in the future should not entail prejudice to those filing the complaint.
In my response, I stated that complainants came before the forum with unclean hands and stand by my assertion, especially in light of the information I came upon in 2011 (please see attached).
The initial complaint was filed July 6, 2010. Less than 2 weeks after, 87 domains were registered by complainant’s grandson/son Jonathan Wallace (please see attached) however none of this was ever presented to the NAF or the courts because I did not find out until after the complainants refused to litigate.
I believe the NAF’s decision should be retracted however, it is highly unlikely due to the timeframe of this response and the prejudice shown by the NAF. Simply put, you and the forum have been duped. I hope in the future you rely on facts.
Dominic J. Morgan
I also sent the following attachment: