Wow... there are no limits to your delusions. LOL!!! THIS VERY THREAD is an example that people DON'T give you the benefit of anything. Three members had responded to this thread but none of them showed even a sliver of blind support for your retarded idea.

PATHETIC.

ROFLMAO!!!! People "believe and trust" you to the extent that it does not affect their own livelihoods. They egg you on when you beat on other sites (whether such sites are scams or not) because all of those sites are their competitors. Your delusions of being trusted are both humorous and pitiful. In fact, I ALMOST feel sorry for you. ^___^

These pathetic combacks of yours are always worth a couple of laughs.

Ha Ha. ^_^

Pity they're all you've got to defend your retarded idea with. :p

Haha.. it's more like you begged the mods to delete the posts. You were probably already fuming and begging since page 3 and they just had to give in to your whining by page 5. Unfortunately for you, my post above is not a repeated post. Feel free to answer it with one though, that's really all you're good for.

The simple facts:

While proof of actual confusion is not needed to obtain an injunction, some courts have said that proof of some actual confusion is required for an accounting of profits. The thinking is that while a "likelihood of confusion" can support injunctive relief, there can be neither actual damage to plaintiff nor unjust enrichment to defendant unless some purchasers have been confused in fact. The rationale appears to be that at least in cases of competing goods, proof of some instances of actual confusion strengthens the inference that sales made by the infringer would have been made by the plaintiff.

proof of actual confusion is not needed to obtain an injunction,

a "likelihood of confusion" can support injunctive relief,

ficpi.org/library/montecarlo99/damages.html

Can it be any clearer that this? Oh I forgot,clarity is in very short supply in that slimy glob of putridity that you dare call your brain. ^_________^

and its meaning is crystal clear for everyone who bothers to read.

This meaning is:

Engaging in commercial practice means selling. If a company engages in trying to sell something but is not actually able to do so, it is still engaging in commerce. The statement "in connection with the sale of goods" also does not mean that actual sale needs to be proven. Just that the act is connected with the business concerned. That is, it is providing a potentially unjust advantage for one party.

As I have explained several times before. If a company false advertises its products or falsely advertises against the products of another, it is violating the Lanham Act. Whether or not the company actually gains financially from their activities is irrelevant to proving guilt.

Oh.. say, you never answered this question or contested the answer I gave for you (and I doubt you ever will) ^____^


Haha!

Oh but do you have proof that CustomEssayWritingServices.com gained financially from their activities? No, you don't.


Engaging in commercial practice means selling. If a company engages in trying to sell something but is not actually able to do so, it is still engaging in commerce. The statement "in connection with the sale of goods" also does not mean that actual sale needs to be proven. Just that the act is connected with the business concerned. That is, it is providing a potentially unjust advantage for one party.

As I have explained several times before. If a company false advertises its products or falsely advertises against the products of another, it is violating the Lanham Act. Whether or not the company actually gains financially from their activities is irrelevant to proving guilt.

Oh wow... isn't this forum supposed to be a channel for both customers and writers to use when they do not get what they are entitled to in this "industry"? A payment processor can scam writers just as an essay company can and writers and company owners ought to be made aware of how SWREG is treating its clients.

Well, the company has finally decided to sue SWREG.

They said that they will be sending me my payment through Paypal. The problem is, one of the owners is still in Cairo.

I was able to reach him through email and he assured me that as soon as he gets back (he expects to be back by Saturday night EST), he will send the payment.

The month-long wait is almost over (I hope).

Sheesh.. where do you get these empty comebacks?

Here are the facts of this thread:

1.) You're saying that CustomEssayWritingServices.com is violating the Lanham Act because of their false advertisement in the form of fake reviews.

2.) But not so long ago, you claimed that one cannot violate the Lanham Act if one is not actually able to sell anything despite trying to do so. (silly.. silly... silly...)

3.) So if we follow that earlier, retarded thinking of yours which you so fervently defended, simply ranking themselves at the top of their own list does not make the sites violators of the Lanham Act.

Of course, CustomEssayWritingServices.com is in violation of the Lanham Act. They have violated the Lanham Act because the Lanham Act is violated by the act of false advertisement with the clear possibility of endangering the sales of a competitor, regardless of whether or not the advertisement is actually able to entice anyone to buy anything. Actual sale of a product is therefore IRRELEVANT in proving guilt although it may be used along with other variables to determine the extent of damage.

Blah blah blah... more character assassination crap from this forum's most pathetic member.

Eat this, b**-h:

Members who I think don't believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

EW_Writer
FW
WRT
stu4
Lavinia
etc. etc. etc...

Members who have expressed being unsure.

Pheelyks
smirk

Members who actually believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

WritersBeware

^___________^

Members who are not sure they want to be on any lists. O.O

editor75

And as I have mentioned mentioned several times before, I challenge anyone who I included in the list of people who understand what the Lanham Act is to speak out if they are unsure or if they actually agree with WB's retarded idea. ^_^


Awwww... Pheelyks and WB sitting on a tree...




What was that about putting words in people's mouths? ^_____________^

Well, I'm sorry if it did. Yet once again, I made the list not to make it seem like everybody agreed with me. I made it to express how obvious I thought the matter was. It is obvious. Anyone who reads the details of the Lanham Act would conclude that it is preposterous for a court to need to prove the occurrence of sales before it can establish guilt for for advertising. Damages maybe but conviction, no.

Oh, and I also disagree with what you said regarding WB's statements. If the first was a statement of fact, then she should have provided a link. Without one, it hangs only by her say so. If she didn't put your name there, it would not carry any weight at all. As for the second statement, it was clearly a statement of she can make you do what she wants if she wanted to. If you want to ignore both of these and focus on my statement of challenge for people to respond to what I think is an obvious matter though, go ahead. Makes no difference to me.

Members who I think don't believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

EW_Writer
FW
WRT
stu4
Lavinia
etc. etc. etc...

Members who have expressed being unsure.

Pheelyks
smirk

Members who actually believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

WritersBeware

^___________^

Members who are not sure they want to be on any lists. O.O

editor75

Happy now?

Thank you.

Members who I think don't believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

EW_Writer
FW
WRT
stu4
Lavinia
etc. etc. etc...

Members who have expressed being unsure.

Pheelyks
editor75
smirk

Members who actually believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

WritersBeware

^___________^

I think that based on how I explained my list, how I never claimed that I contacted any of you (and instead asked those who I included in the list to speak out if they had any objections), AND based on the obvious that I'm no psychic, I think it's pretty clear that I meant my statement exactly as you qualified it. I never stated it in such a way as to make it seem that I asked your opinion. However, I apologize if it seemed that way to you. That said:

Members who I think don't believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

EW_Writer
FW
WRT
stu4
smirk
Lavinia
etc. etc. etc...

Members who have expressed being unsure.

Pheelyks
editor75

Members who actually believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

WritersBeware

^___________^


I didn't. I was just expressing how obvious the argument is. But hey, since you brought this up...




So.. at least I have the decency to challenge you to respond to my post about what I think you believe.

Members who don't believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

EW_Writer
FW
Pheelyks
WRT
stu4
smirk
Lavinia
etc. etc. etc... (except WritersBeware and editor75)

^____^

I know you're praying for the mod to see your repetitive posts (and my repetitive responses) and delete the posts so that you'd have a chance at getting your dignity back, but I doubt that they'd delete the entire thread. Good luck, though. :p

Wow... ANOTHER brilliant comeback. ^__^ Does it in any way substantively rebut any of the points presented against WritersBeware's retarded idea that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act?

...

ROFLMAO!

Go f yourself.

Yeah, right. ^______^


No, she didn't. She found xact guilty of false advertisement under the Lanham Act. NO PROOF of xact making an actual sale because of the false advertisement was necessary. This is crystal clear from the text below which you so generously provided:

xact's misrepresentations and misleading warranties regarding the quality and originality of its products and services will unquestionably victimize the average consumer, and constitute an unconscionable commercial practice of deception, fraud, and unlawful conduct in connection with the sale of goods and the performance of services sought by consumers.

You can sing your song all you want and continue to (how did you say it?), "no longer entertain me." Hahaha!!!! Oddly enough, I find you continously entertaining. :p

Oh, and we both know that if I wrote a list of people who are poor writers and included pheelyks and FW in it, they'd respond within a heartbeat of seeing the post. I won't, and they're not. They won't respond to my list here because they both know that they're in the right list. That is, the list of people who are NOT RETARDED enough to believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act (or are unsure about the matter).

No, you're irrelevant. The computation of damages is different from the determination of guilt. Nice try, though. ^____^ It might even be the case the xact's sales records were subpoenaed to ascertain the damage of $700,000. However, the sales records still have NOTHING to do with the judge's guilty verdict.

No, they won't.

Members who don't believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

EW_Writer
FW
Pheelyks
WRT
stu4
smirk
Lavinia
etc. etc. etc...

Members who believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act (or are unsure about the matter):

WritersBeware
editor75

And I continue to DARE the people I included in the list to side with WB's retarded opinion or to even claim that they're not sure. ^__^

Yes you did. Let's post the entire post, shall we?

I said: Then your comeback (LOL!) was: and what was your well-thought, highly significant (barf) reply to this?

Wanna try one more time? ^__________^

LOL!!! So you want to be in the list as well? ^__________^ Well, I guess it's not too late for you to issue a retraction and an apology. ROFLMAO!!!


Lie.


Want to try again? :p You're just a sucker for punishment. I love it! ^_^

If I made a list of people who I think believe that they shouldn't mix rat poop in their morning coffee, would you opt out of that list just because you're unsure if you want to be on any list in this forum? Frankly, your dramatics are tiring. My list is quite objective, referring in particular to the position that a court doesn't need to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act. If you don't have an opinion on it then you don't deserve to be on the list of people who I believe find the notion of needing to prove actual sales retarded.

but it's so much fun. ^_^


F?*k you. I asked editor if he'd like to be taken off the list and it seems that he does (he said that he is unsure.. blah blah). Thus, allow me to make the correction.

Members who don't believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act:

EW_Writer
FW
Pheelyks
WRT
stu4
smirk
Lavinia
etc. etc. etc...

Members who believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act (or are unsure about the matter):

WritersBeware
editor75

There we go. LOL!!!! Anyone else? ^______________________^


Hahahahaha!!!!! Priceless!!!!


Oh, but I've done much more than that. I actually answered for them. If they think that the answer I gave for them was in any way preposterous, you can bet that fat, wrinkly a** of yours that they'd be posting for me to remove them from the list as soon as they read my post. Oh but if my answer was reasonable, then they risk damaging their reputation if they ask me to remove their names from the list since it would mean siding with your retarded position (or at least being ignorant enough not to have a say on an obvious matter. Sorry, editor75 :p). So, they won't. ^_^

Well, she asked for it. If you read my first post on this thread I was was willing to leave my comment (and my laughs) at a minimum. Oh, but she just had to throw an insult and make it interesting for me to put her down again like the b**-h she is. ^_^

Btw, should I take you off the list? (your name isn't there but you're included just like everybody else).

Brilliant comeback!!! I didn't see that one coming. ^___________^

Moron.

Members who don't believe that a court needs to prove that a company that created a false advertisement was able to sell a single product in order to hold it liable for violating the Lanham Act.

EW_Writer
FW
Pheelyks
WRT
stu4
smirk
Lavinia
etc. etc. etc...

ANYONE who has a problem with being included in the list above and either actually believes WB's retarded idea about false advertisement law in the U.S. or is unsure about the matter can post their disapproval of my including them on this list and I will GLADLY take them off it. Thanks.

WOW.. after some stupidity from WB, guess what... MORE STUPIDITY. ^___^

Does the statement above have something to do with selling?

YES!

Does the statement above prove that if a false advertisement has the potential to lure customers to make a purchase, the advertiser is in violation of the Lanham Act?

YES!

Does the statement above prove that the court had to find evidence that xact was actually able to successfully sell an essay because of their false advertisements in order to hold them liable?

F!*K.... NO.

Is this crystal clear from the statement above?

HELL... YES.

and I'm willing to bet that a 6th grade student who's not even in the top 50th percentile of his class can tell you this.

Yes, you guessed it. You're in for another few months of nobody believing anything you say that's not already fu**-n obvious. You asked for it, b**-h.

Wow... more bulls-i* from you... why don't I find it surprising?

Quote the exact portion of the ruling that stated that proof of xact's sales was crucial for the verdict.

You CAN'T because it ISN'T, and that is that. ^____^


Translation: Help!!!!

LOL!!!!

I DARE Pheelyks to support your claim that in order for a company to be guilty of violating the Lanham Act, it must be proven that the company benefitted financially from its actions. Pheelyks WON'T because if he did, he'd look just as RETARDED as you. ^___^

Let's all see some more of WB's


Hohohohahahaha!!!

Let's not get caught up in semantics.

If you buy from a company that sells you crap:

1.) Get your money back.
2.) Expose the company in forums like this so that nobody will ever order from it again.
3.) Sue the company for selling you a product that is different from what they promised.

^____^

Squirm all you want, loser. ^_^ I just love it when you're desperate. Once again:


Anyone who reads the ruling will come to the same conclusion.


So your continued "entertainment" of my posts means that you think my stellar attempts at kicking your a** are rational? Great. I'm glad we can agree on something. LOL!!!!

Got you again. ^______^

Now, let me have some more of your:


HAHAHA!!! Priceless.. absolutely priceless. ^________^

No. The judge did not believe it necessary for SNR to prove that xact benefitted financially from its actions to find xact guilty.

Oh, but EVEN IF she did:



I agree. YOU STILL LOSE.

Oh.. and good luck with this:


ROFLMAO!!!!!!

and then...

Can anyone be more pathetic? Really? ^____^


WB: pretend-lawyer hopelessly trying to associate her argument with the sound ruling of Judge Wolfson.

...and here we see more of WB's b**-hing when faced with undeniable evidence of her stupidity.

Tsk.. tsk.

Did Wolfson's ruling say anything about the sales of xact? Ooooh... you want to equate the term "commerce" to sales right? You think that's so smart, right? No, IDIOT. Commerce can be equated to selling, not sales. Even when one is not able to sell anything, when one attempts to do so, one is engaging in commerce.

Once again, your idea that a company has to be proven to have gained monetarily from an act of false advertisement before it can be charged with violating the Lanham Act is fu**-n RETARDED. Just like YOU are. ^_^

and besides, how do I get it through your thick skull that in the Bizarro world that you ARE right about the Lanham Act, you'd be wrong about thesiswritingservice.com and CustomEssayWritingServices.com since you're accusing that them of violating the Lanham Act WITHOUT any proof that they gained financially from their actions. ^___^

F?*k y**, stupid head. Nice try in trying to turn this around. Won't work. I never disagreed with your claim that thesiswritingservice.com in violation of the Lanham Act. It is. The factrs are clear:

1.) You're saying that the sites above are violating the Lanham Act because of their false advertisement.

2.) But not so long ago, you claimed that one cannot violate the Lanham Act if one is not actually able to sell anything despite trying to do so. (silly.. silly... silly...)

3.) So if we follow that earlier, retarded thinking of yours which you so fervently defended, simply ranking themselves at the top of their own list does not make the sites violators of the Lanham Act.

They are, of course.They have violated the Lanham Act because the Lanham Act is violated by the act of false advertisement, regardless of whether or not the advertisement is actually able to entice anyone to buy.


No, you're silly, retarded, and absolutely bonkers for believing that for a company to be held accountable for false advertisement under the Lanham Act, it must first be proven that the company financially gained from their false advertisement. NOBODY would take your side on that one. ^__^

Wow.. there really are no limits to your skills at playing dumb. ^_^

We're not talking about xact. We all know that xact makes money. We're talking about your accusation that CustomEssayWritingServices is violating the Lanham Act. Since you obviously have no proof as to whether or not a single customer has ordered from thesiswritingservice.com because of the reviews posted on CustomEssayWritingServices.com, your accusation contradicts your position that a company can only be guilty of violating the Lanham Act if it made money from its actions which I agree, is a RETARDED position in the first place.

Once again, here are the simple facts that are crystal clear in this thread:

If thesiswritingservice.com owns CustomEssayWritingServices.com, is CustomEssayWritingServices.com in violation of the Lanham Act?

YES.

Is thesiswritingservice.com in violation of the Lanham Act?

YES.

Is WritersBeware a silly pretend-lawyer with the nasty habit of putting her stinking foot in her even stinkier mouth?

Oh Yeah. ^_________________^


because they know that if they did, there would be no way for them to rebuild their reputation. It would be downright preposterous for people like FW or pheelyks or WRT or Lavinia or major or ANYONE ELSE who you may think is on your side to agree with you that in order for a company to be held accountable for false advertisement under the Lanham Act, it must first be proven that the company financially gained from their false advertisement. It's silly, it's retarded, it's absolutely, positively BONKERS. ^____^

*whistle, whistle*

Ahahaha!!!!

The facts are simple:

But there is no need to prove that the company actually benefited financially from the fake review site to make the company liable. Otherwise, you would be completely out of bounds in your statement that thesiswritingservice.com is in direct violation of the Lanham Act.

I get it, everyone else gets it (I challenge ANYONE to say otherwise), only YOU don't get it. Pity.. pity. ^___________^

Care to say otherwise? ^___________^


The heat that comes from being humiliated over and over again. ^____^ Oh, and please feel free to throw your pathetic tantrums all you want. We're all used to it and are fully aware of what it all means. :P

ROFLMAO!!!! This is even funnier than what prompted me to post on this thread in the first place! ^_______^

This is exactly what people can expect from WB when she can't take the heat. :p


Am I debating the court ruling? No. What I am pointing out is that you are most evidently, a self-contradicting worm. :p

I just LOVE it when you squirm. ^___^

Was any commerce involved in the fake reviews in CustomEssayWritingServices.com? Can you prove that somebody actually bought an essay from thesiswritingservice.com because of the false reviews at CustomEssayWritingServices.com?

Let me answer for you, NO.. and NO again.

If thesiswritingservice.com owns CustomEssayWritingServices.com, is CustomEssayWritingServices.com in violation of the Lanham Act?

YES.

Is thesiswritingservice.com in violation of the Lanham Act?

YES.

Is WritersBeware a silly pretend-lawyer with the nasty habit of putting her stinking foot in her even stinkier mouth?

Oh Yeah. ^_________________^

Oh, and one more thing:

LOL!!! and where in that statement do you support you not contradict your "no sale, no crime" banner? :p

The facts are simple, even for you.

1.) You said in a previous argument that people can't violate the Lanham Act if they are not actually able to sell anything. Do you deny this? ^_______^ Haha!!!

2.) Now you're claiming that people violate the Lanham Act by publishing FAKE reviews. As I pointed out, this is correct. However, it falls in direct contradiction with your earlier statements.

Need I say more? :p


Dream on. ^_^