The blog post is making false statements and linking to the "Opinion" (it is a Preliminary Injunction) and fooling people like you into thinking his statements are true.
Despite your personal opinion of me, the facts are as follows:
I did not, and never changed my name. During the lawsuit, ample discovery and subpoena was performed by both sides showing Court and Defense that my name has never been changed.
I was granted my Preliminary Injunction on three claims. Read it to see what they were. As I worked with the EFF with, on, and throughout my lawsuit, we were very careful to make sure the claims were specific to not establish any precedent that would, or could, negatively affect Trademark or speech rights / laws by the claims if they were validated by the Court (and they were).
The lawsuit was not primarily about the domain. Ms. Woffinden-Johnson was using my name and my likeness to perform in porn, to do a "sex ed" radio show, and to do in-person signings as me - she began doing "sex ed" videos, as well as "nerd girl" porn and "girls with glasses" porn during the lawsuit. She also dressed up as me and did signings in San Francisco as "Violet Blue." At the time we filed suit and until we obtained the injunction, her website had several photos of her on the front page as she normally looks - blonde, natural - and one image front and center of her with a black bob wig and "Bettie Paige" style bangs, and my name over that image, which the Court acknowledged as adopting my style and creating confusion.
For those interested, Ms. Woffineden-Johnson acknowledged in Federal Court and in writing that she never had the right to use my name. I did not ask for anything but the web domain and that she stop using my name and likeness. Though we discovered she was not poor (she claimed to the Court she was "indigent" and the Court was not pleased when it was revealed otherwise), I absorbed all of my legal fees. Also, the lawsuit was originally launched when Ms. Woffinden-Johnson emailed me saying she was "almost done with your [my] name" and that I could have it back when she quit porn, which she said she was about to do - and then did not. I spoke with the EFF and EFF colleagues about the email and they already knew about my problem, and then we later filed suit.
I will stand partially corrected on the issue of you changing your name for the purpose of the suit.
However - you are amazingly cagey, and very specifically wordy around the issue of your birth name.
“My name is legally Violet Blue.”
You make claims of having never changed your name.
You post (redacted) pictures of your passport on your blog (http://www.tinynibbles.com/blogarchives/2008/08/about-those-...) as “proof” of your name (certainly, currently), but the idea of posting similarly redacted birth certificates “is really a scary thought”.
"My name is Violet Blue. As I have proven, provided evidence, and provided plentiful witness testimony (and have had legally acknowledged) to and by the US Patent and Trademark Office and the Federal Court of the 9th Circuit, I have been using my name Violet Blue related to the goods and services of my brand, “(…) since 1999, “
which, if you actually read, does nothing to bolster your claim that it’s your birth name.
Also funny that your birth place and year are redacted everywhere, including Wikipedia.
The irony of all this is that it doesn’t really matter what your birth name was or is, and whether it’s really anyone’s business is highly doubtful. But to pretend it’s all on other people, and act as though you’re this entirely victimized person, and not fanning the flames is a little disingenuous.
Sadly, my access to LN is unavailable at the moment - but I’m curious, of all the filings you could link to, why only a preliminary injunction - you talk of Court findings and acknowledgments, but you settled. Courts don’t issue findings unless they issue a judgment, not when there’s a settlement.
The blog post is making false statements and linking to the "Opinion" (it is a Preliminary Injunction) and fooling people like you into thinking his statements are true.
Read the Injunction he claims to be getting his information from - http://www.jurisnote.com/Cases/blue5370.htm - for verification.
Despite your personal opinion of me, the facts are as follows:
I did not, and never changed my name. During the lawsuit, ample discovery and subpoena was performed by both sides showing Court and Defense that my name has never been changed.
I was granted my Preliminary Injunction on three claims. Read it to see what they were. As I worked with the EFF with, on, and throughout my lawsuit, we were very careful to make sure the claims were specific to not establish any precedent that would, or could, negatively affect Trademark or speech rights / laws by the claims if they were validated by the Court (and they were).
The lawsuit was not primarily about the domain. Ms. Woffinden-Johnson was using my name and my likeness to perform in porn, to do a "sex ed" radio show, and to do in-person signings as me - she began doing "sex ed" videos, as well as "nerd girl" porn and "girls with glasses" porn during the lawsuit. She also dressed up as me and did signings in San Francisco as "Violet Blue." At the time we filed suit and until we obtained the injunction, her website had several photos of her on the front page as she normally looks - blonde, natural - and one image front and center of her with a black bob wig and "Bettie Paige" style bangs, and my name over that image, which the Court acknowledged as adopting my style and creating confusion.
For those interested, Ms. Woffineden-Johnson acknowledged in Federal Court and in writing that she never had the right to use my name. I did not ask for anything but the web domain and that she stop using my name and likeness. Though we discovered she was not poor (she claimed to the Court she was "indigent" and the Court was not pleased when it was revealed otherwise), I absorbed all of my legal fees. Also, the lawsuit was originally launched when Ms. Woffinden-Johnson emailed me saying she was "almost done with your [my] name" and that I could have it back when she quit porn, which she said she was about to do - and then did not. I spoke with the EFF and EFF colleagues about the email and they already knew about my problem, and then we later filed suit.