Send this site to a friend!

If you arrived here directly from a search or link, you can click here to bring up the main website.

NOTE: The AFMA has lost their case. Please read the Statement of Andy Hasse.

August 6, 1996

Andy Hasse registers AFM.COM. The site is to be a classifieds and auctions search engine. When first launched it is primarily a portal for classifieds and auctions. Programming work as well as ecommerce advertising arrangements occur over the next five years. The WHOIS for AFM.COM is here.


January 23, 2001 (about 5 1/2 years later)

The American Film Marketing Association sends a rude "cease and desist" letter to Linda Blass, an administrative contact for the domain, AFM.COM. AFMA's Cease and Desist letter is here. 1 + 2


February 10, 2001

Andy Hasse, owner of AFM.COM, sends a response to the January 23, 2001 letter, which notifies the American Film Marketing Association (AFMA) of the use of AFM.COM. Andy Hasse's response to the AFMA is here.


April 30, 2001

The official Domain Dispute Complaint is received from the arbiter ("court"), WIPO, filed by the AFMA, which claims that Andy Hasse has been using AFM.com (1) in bad faith, (2) that it is confusingly similar to their trademark and (3) that Andy Hasse has no bona fide use for the name AFM.COM which he has owned for six years. (AFMA's Complaint document is five inches thick. If you would like to view a copy of the complaint please contact use at info@hasse.com to exchange a non-disclosure agreement--to protect third party information)


Note that Andy Hasse has only 20 calendar days from May 30th to respond to this five inch thick complaint, that has undoubtedly been prepared by several attorneys at the AFMA.


May 5, 2001

Andy Hasse sends a letter (via email and post--their fax is not answering) to case manager Sonia Cruickshank at WIPO which notes that the deadline to respond to the complaint as written on WIPO's notification is incorrect. The Complaint has been received April 30th, thus the reply date is 20 days later or May 20th. The Complaint lists May 14th as the latest reply date for a Response. Read Andy Hasse's request for review of the Response date here.


May 7, 2001

WIPO Case Manager Sonia Cruickshank, responds to Andy Hasse, with an initial denial from WIPO to revise the official Response date. Ms. Cruickshank's letter is here. WIPO_Response.0507 + WIPO_Response.0507.CT


May 8, 2001

Andy Hasse responds to WIPO Case Manager Sonia Cruickshank with a letter which notes that
1. the Complaint was not sent to all available addresses as specified in ICANN's UDRP.
2. that a Complaint is not deemed complete by WIPO until it is received in hard copy, thus a receipt of such a Complaint should not be deemed received by the Respondent (the subject of the Complaint) until it is received in hard copy by the Respondent.
3. that the Complaint that was sent on April 25th, was in partial form (an email, without annexes, which in hard copy are four inches thick).
Read Andy Hasse's letter here. (PDF format). WIPO_Response_deadline.
Fedex 1 & 2 and Post Receipts are Here


May 9, 2001

Andy Hasse sends a letter to case manager Sonia Cruickshank at WIPO which notes that there is a possible conflict of interest as both WIPO and AFMA have been working together for several years. Andy suggests that one of the other three officially selected arbitration organizations, eResolution, CRP, or NAF be selected. LINK: Read the letter. PDF Format Domain.Dispute.D2001-0558.Recusement.


May 9, 2001
WIPO Case Manager Sonia Cruickshank responds to Andy Hasse letter of May 8th regarding the official Response Deadline. Andy Hasse had pointed out that the official Complaint was received in its full form (including annexes) on April 30th. Thus the official Respondent deadline should be, per ICANN's UDRP May 20th. WIPO Case Manager Sonic Cruickshank, informs Andy Hasse that WIPO agrees with his argument, and set the official date as May 20th. WIPO_Agreement LINK
May 10, 2001

WIPO Case Manager Sonia Cruickshank responds to Andy Hasse's letter of May 9th, regarding a possible Conflict of Interest: PDF Format - Domain.Dispute.D2001-0558.Recusement. Ms. Cruickshank states that WIPO's Senior Legal council has been asked to review the request. Click here to see.


May 11, 2001

WIPO Case Manager Sonia Cruickshank copies Andy Hasse on a letter to AFMA legal staff member Jonathan Cristall which asks for AFMA's comments on Andy Hasse's request that WIPO recuse itself from the case. WIPO suspends the Response deadline until the AFMA submits its comments regarding Andy Hasse's request for Recusement. Click here to see.


May 16, 2001

In their commentary on a possible conflict of interest, and the AFMA's "failure" to reveal a prior relationship with WIPO, AFMA Attorney Jonathan Cristall refuses to answer the concerns that Andy Hasse poses in his request for recusement. PDF Format - Domain.Dispute.D2001-0558.Recusement.

The AFMA Attorney, Cristall, instead claims it is not WIPO but only the presiding panelist (chosen by WIPO) who should make a decision regarding recusement. Cristall also states that there has only "been some limited and tenuous involvement between WIPO and AFMA". Read Attorney Crystall's "charming" letter here.

Visit one of several webpages which connect WIPO and the AFMA here, see Andy Hasse's request for recusement above for more examples.


May 16, 2001

WIPO Case Manager Sonia Cruickshank emails Andy Hasse to say that WIPO will not recuse itself from the Domain Dispute. The new deadline for a Response is set for May 25. Click here to see.


May 17, 2001

Andy Hasse responds to both WIPO case manager, Sonia Cruickshank's email of May 16 regarding the request for recusement and to AFMA attorney Jonathan Crystal's letter that was received May 16, but written on May 12. Andy Hasse letter is here.


May 18, 2001

Due to Andy Hasse's concerns about (1) the intimidating techniques of the AFMA attorneys and (2) the burden that the current ICANN Domain Dispute Policy and the Supplemental Rules of the WIPO arbitration process presents to domain name owners, Andy Hasse produces this website. The goal of the website is

A. to let others follow this important case.

B. to spark a debate as to the current domain dispute policy: how it affects small business owners and individuals; how it impacts the free speech rights of U.S. Citizens.


May 21, 2001

Andy Hasse, owner of AFM.COM, sends a request to WIPO for domain name history information. After two weeks of correspondence and phone calls with Network Solutions, Inc, the company that controls the WHOIS database, Andy Hasse learned that there is not yet in place a way for parties in a ICANN Domain Dispute to obtain domain name history information for domains owned by other parties.

The AFMA's attorneys have alleged that Andy Hasse owns other domain names that he does not. To prove the AFMA wrong, official domain name registration history that is not available on the WHOIS needs to be obtained, specifically, history of who first owned a domain name.. (Yes, domain name history other than that of AFM.COM, should be irrelevant, but the AFMA's attorneys don't have much to go on, so they're using strange arguments. And according to ICANN's Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy, a Respondent has to answer all of the allegations of the Complainant). Read Andy Hasse's letter to WIPO on this issue.

Support docs to Andy Hasse's letter:  1 & 2.


May 23, 2001 (2am)

Sonia Cruickshank, Case Manager for WIPO, responds to Andy Hasse's letter of May 21, to say that that WIPO will not assist with obtaining the domain name registration history that Andy Hasse requires to adequately respond to the Domain Dispute. Read Ms. Cruickshank's email here.


May 23, 2001 (3am)

Given that domain name history cannot be obtained without a subpoena, and a subpoena cannot be legally issued for a Domain Dispute under ICANN's UDRP, this presents a real problem.

Andy Hasse decides to use "reverse legalese", and requests that Netsol (Network Solutions) send an official confirmation that neither Andy Hasse nor his company Hasse, Inc. has ever registered a list of domains which the Complainant, and incidentally Wired News and the SF Francisco Chronicle, attributed to him. Thus, although this measure does not yield a domain name history, it does confirm that the Complainant, the AFMA, has wrongly attributed various domain name registrations to Andy Hasse. [Note all of this is actually irrelevant as the domain name in question is AFM.COM which Andy Hasse has owned for almost six years, but the Complainant is "reaching" and attempting a character assassination. They will not succeed--if justice prevails, that is)]


May 23, 2001 (noon)

After a phone call to Don Parsons, Legal Affairs Rep. for Network Solutions, Mr. Parsons graciously honors Andy Hasse's request and agrees to Fedex such an official declaration in time for the Response to be sent. The Fedex does not arrive in time, but Andy Hasse had also requested that a fax copy be sent, which is included in the Response.


May 25, 2001 (11pm)

At a copying and postage costs of $450, and after three weeks of intense work, Andy Hasse sends four copies of his Response (per ICANN's Rules) to WIPO in Geneva, and one copy to the Complainant, John Cristall, AFMA. Andy also includes the required check for $1500 which will allow Andy to possibly have one of his requested arbiters ("judges") included on a three-person panel which will decide the dispute. Total cost: $2,000 plus three weeks' work!

NOTE: if you would like to view a copy of the Response and or Complaint, please contact andy@hasse.com. After the signing of a brief Non-disclosure Agreement (to protect the privacy of third parties) we will gladly forward the documents. [As you may note, this entire ICANN UDRP process forces both the Complainant and Respondent to reveal a lot of private information]

June 9, 2001

After waiting sixteen days, Andy Hasse sends an email to Sonia Cruickshank at WIPO to ask about the receipt of his Response. Read email

June 10, 2001

Sonia Cruickshank responds to say that the Response was received by the Center. Read email.

June 10-12, 2001

After sifting through hundreds of emails on other accounts, Andy Hasse notices that an official Receipt of Response was sent on June 6th, but that is was sent to the wrong address, that is, not to the email address specified on his Response for correspondence (which is andy@hasse.com). Read the Receipt of Response email and Read the attachment to that Receipt of Response email

Complainant sends in additional material: Andy Hasse also discovered that the Complainant, in violation of the UDRP, has submitted at least one more document, and cc'd that document to the wrong address as well. Read the Complainant's email here.

June 13, 2001

Andy Hasse sends an email and fax to Sonia Cruickshank, case manager at WIPO, which requests that all email that was not sent to the official address for correspondence specified in the Response from May 25th to the present be sent to the official address: andy@hasse.com. Andy Hasse also points out that the Complainant had not followed the Rules of the UDRP by submitting further documents to the Panel after their Complaint was filed. Read that correspondence here

June 20, 2001

No response nor copies of email have yet been received from WIPO per Andy Hasse's email and fax request of June 13.

June 22, 2001

AFMA attorney Jonathan Cristall send an email to WIPO to ask about the status of the Case. Read email

June 23, 2001

Andy Hasse speaks at the Rhetoric and Democracy in the Age of the Internet Conference at Trinity College, Hartford, Connecticut. An International, Interdisciplinary Conference Organized by Trinity College In Cooperation with the Intercollegiate E-Democracy Project. http://www.trincoll.edu/prog/iedp/conference.htm. Hasse changes his original paper from The Political Use of the Internet to ICANN and the Contras: The Loss of Constitutional Rights Online.

June 26, 2001

Sonia Cruickshank, case manger at WIPO, responds to Jonathan Cristall's email of June 22 to say that she is still the process of appointing a panel. Read email

July 4th, 2001

225 years after the signing of the Declaration of Independence, and 40 days after submitting his Response to WIPO, Andy Hasse awaits an email from WIPO regarding the panelists. Currently Andy is in Connecticut, the "Constitution State".

July 7th, 2001

Andy Hasse receives an email from WIPO which notifies him that the pannelists (AKA arbiters or "judges") of the Domain Dispute have been selected. Although Andy Hasse expected to have some say in the choosing of the third pannelist, he is nevertheless optimistic that justice will prevail. The pannelists chosen are David H. Berstein (Presiding Pannelist), Dana Haviland and Michael Froomkin. The Nofication is Dated July 4th.

Read the email Notification of the Selection of Pannelists Here Read the attachments here and the Case File here

July 9th, 2001

Andy Hasse sends an email to Sonia Cruickshank, case manager, at WIPO regarding the omissions in the Case File (a listing of correspondences) sent with the Notification of June 7th. Several correspondences between the Respondent, Andy Hasse, the Complainant, AFMA/Jonathan Cristall, and WIPO, may be relevant to the pannelists and they were not listed. Read Andy's letter and also the attached revised Case File.

Also in that same email, Andy refers to his correspondence and WIPO's subsequent agreement on May 9th, 2001, that a Complaint or Response, is not held to be complete until it and all Annexes are received. This agreement by WIPO may set a precedent for subsequent Domain Dispute. Also, in the determination of when a panelist ruling is due should perhaps be based on when the documents are received in hard copy (not just email) by all panelist.

July 10, 2001

Sonia Cruickshank forwards the revised Case File to the panelist.

July 11, 2001

Complainant violates UDRP again. Jonathan Cristall, attorney for the AFMA, sends a correspondence to the group of Panelists in violation of the UDRP. Read email. Note: only four days after Sonia Cruickshank, case manager for WIPO had reminded the Complaint and Respondent of the Rules for the UDRP, Section 8: "No party acting on its behalf may have any unilateral communication with the Panel. All communications between a Party and the Panel or the Provider [WIPO] shall be made to a case administrator appointed by the Provider...." [Full Rules are here]

Complainant also violated the UDRP on June 7th (see June 10-12 entry above).

July 12, 2001

Sonia Cruickshank, case manager for WIPO, sends an email to Complainant, Respondent, and the Panel, which confirms that the Complainant had violated Section 8 of the Rules. Ms. Cruickshank states that "[a]ll communications from a party to a panelist should be sent to the Center. The Center will thereafter forward same to the panel." Read email.

Andy Hasse, the Respondent, sends a correspondence to WIPO which notes that a prohibition on direct correspondence between a Complainant or Respondent does not mean that the Center (AKA WIPO) should forward all correspondence directly to the Panel. Citing Section 12 of the Rules. Andy Hasse confirms that "the Panel may request, in it's sole discretion, further statements or documents from either of the Parties." Hasse cites previous WIPO cases which state that, at best the Complainant should first submit a justification that a further submission be considered. Read Andy Hasse's letter.

July 15, 2001

Andy Hasse sends a request to WIPO for the names of the arbiters submitted by the Complainant. Read email.

July 16, 2001

WIPO responds with the names of the arbiters submitted by the Complainant. Read WIPO email. and Read the attachment to that email.

July 17, 2001

Andy Hasse sends a letter to Sonia Cruickshank, case manager at WIPO, regarding A. his June 13th request (see above) for misdirected email correspondences, and B. an apparent oversight regarding Panelist selection per the UDRP Rules. Read the letter.

July 19, 2001 AM

Sonia Cruickshank, case manager at WIPO, sends two emails to Andy Hasse which are apparently responses to his emails of June 17th and June 12th letters. First email, Second Email.

July 19, 2001 PM

Andy Hasse sends a letter to Sonia Cruickshank regarding the mistake made in the UDRP process for selecting the third arbiter. Andy Hasse also comments on the entire ICANN UDRP process. Read the letter.

July 24, 2001

WIPO sends notice that the UDRP Rules will be followed (per Andy Hasse's letters of July 17th and 19th) and asked for submissions from both the Complainant and Respondent for the third arbiter/panelist. Read email and attachment.

July 25, 2001

Andy Hasse sends a letter to WIPO regarding the third panelist and recommends the current presiding panelist, David H. Bernstein, as a possible mutually acceptable panelist. Also Andy Hasse comments on the UDRP communication rules. Read the letter.

July 27, 2001

Andy Hasse sends a request to Sonia Cuickshank at WIPO for a response to his letter sent on Wednesday, 25 July (at 05:00 GMT), as it is relevant to the current panelist selection proceedings. If WIPO does not respond by today, Friday 27 July, it is unlikely that they will respond over the weekend as they have yet to act on weekends, and a submission is due Monday 30, July. (Note that parties to Disputes under ICANN's UDRP must abide by "calendar day" response times and not "business day" response times, thus WIPO should likewise be available on weekends to answer questions regarding Disputes.) Read email

July 27, 2001

Sonia Cruickshank, case manager for WIPO, sends two emails. The first notifies Andy Hasse that a response to his letter of July 25 will be made next week as the "Senior legal council is out of the office until then." Read email

The second email notifies the parties, Complainant and Respondent, that David H. Bernstein will continue as the Presiding Panelist. Read email

August 2, 2001

WIPO Attorney John Cristall sends an email which alledges that the AFM.COM page was altered by the Complainant after the Dispute began. Read email. Andy Hasse responds to this email on August 9th (below).

August 3, 2001

Sonia Cruickshank, case manager for WIPO, informes the Parties that the decision will be delayed until August 17th. Read email

August 9, 2001

Andy Hasse, the Respondent, and owner of AFM.COM, sends two emails to WIPO. The first email addresses WIPO's July 27th statement that Andy Hasse's questions of July 25th would be answered the week of July 30th; they were never answered. Read email. The second email is a response to the Complainant's allegation of August 2nd (above). Read email.

September 11, 2001

WIPO sends confirmation that Andy Hasse has won the right to keep his domain name. Read the confirmation. AFMA was not found to be a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker, but given the relationship between WIPO and the AFMA, and the AFMA's worldwide relationships, this is understandable.

Please Sign up for the Newsletter--which will continue! (Your information will not be shared, and unsubscribing is easy)

Note to Reader: Andy Hasse never agreed to arbitration under ICANN's UDRP. When he registered the name AFM.COM in August of 1996, ICANN did not exist. His use of AFM.COM was protected under U.S. Law. But now he has been forced into arbitration due to this new international law. And if it took you a while to read all of the above, imagine how long it took Andy Hasse to deal with this case. He was given only 20 days to Respond, with no extensions, and look at the "hoops" he had to jump through to defend his clear right to this Domain Name. Is this 21st Century USA? How would you fare if you had to defend your rights under such laws?

Injustice boils in men's hearts as does steel in its cauldron, ready to pour forth, white hot, in the fullness of time.

-- Mother Jones

Send this site to a friend!