Corbin Fisher Settles With 2 Website Operators

SAN DIEGO — Corbin Fisher has settled with a few defendants but others still face a cyberpiracy and trademark infringement suit over trying to capitalize on the gay studio's name.

Corbin Fisher earlier this month filed suit against scores of individuals, companies and domain registrars that had something to do with 19 similar domain names.

So far, two operators have settled, four of the domain owners or registrars named and identified in the case still remain as plaintiffs and operators of 10 other sites that used masking services have yet to be identified, XBIZ has learned.

Marc Randazza, the studio's general counsel, told XBIZ that the settlements with two of the defendants — DI S.A. of Luxembourg, which owned and Corbinfiisher, and the operator of of Vancouver, Wash. — were resolved amicably.

"I am not at liberty to share the precise terms of the settlement agreements, but I can comment that they were resolved with mere token payments," he said. "Although Corbin Fisher aggressively protects its intellectual property rights, they are very receptive to defendants who enter into meaningful settlement discussions early on in the case."

The remaining plaintiffs in the case include James March of Sacramento, Calif., who owns, and Perry Sjogren of Seattle, who owns

Other plaintiffs remaining include of Beaumaris, Australia, which owns,, and, and Adrush Media of Ijmuiden, The Netherlands, which owns

Corbin Fisher still seeks to find the identities of the operators of a number of sites, including,,,,,,,, and

Randazza said most of the domain registry privacy services "contacted us and gave up their customers, so we are amending the complaint to include them."

Those registrars originally named to the suit include Domains by Proxy of Scottsdale, Ariz.; of Moergestel Null, The Netherlands; Nameview of Vancouver, Wash.;; WhoisProtector of Chicago; Direct Privacy IC 826c9 of Grand Cayman; and Whois Privacy Protection Service Inc. of Bellevue, Wash.

Randazza said that the defendants who settled their cases picked the appropriate legal counsel to defend themselves from cyberpiracy and trademark infringement charges.

"Fortunately for the defendants who are being dropped, they were smart enough to hire ethical and competent counsel who were both realistic about the possible outcomes and who were more interested in serving their clients' best interests than lining their pockets by beating their chests and selling their clients a bill of goods," he said.

"The case goes on against the remaining defendants. It is necessary to nail at least one defendant to the wall in each case. We are confident that at least one defendant will volunteer for that role."