McAfee’s Transfer of Cyberguard.com Domain ‘Unverifiable,’ Says Plaintiff
Defendant McAfee falsely claims it’s the wrong defendant in pro se plaintiff James Linlor’s cybersquatting lawsuit, said Linlor’s opposition Tuesday in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose to McAfee’s March 29 motion to dismiss his complaint (see…
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Export Compliance Daily combines U.S. export control news, foreign border import regulation and policy developments into a single daily information service that reliably informs its trade professional readers about important current issues affecting their operations.
2303300002). Linlor alleges McAfee is cybersquatting on his cyberguard.com internet domain name and preventing him from pursuing a similarly named cybersecurity consultancy. McAfee’s motion to dismiss contends that Linlor knows it sold the domain to Musarubra in July 2021 as part of its strategy to divest all its enterprise businesses and concentrate on cybersecurity protection for consumers. But McAfee provides an “unverifiable” statement of transfer of the cyberguard.com domain to Musarubra that’s “overcome” by ICANN data, said Linlor’s opposition. On McAfee’s motion for a declaration from the court that Linlor is a “vexatious” litigant under the California Code of Civil Procedure, Linlor doesn’t meet the “requirements” to be listed as a vexatious litigant anywhere, it said. Linlor has been waiting for the San Diego Superior Court to remove his name from its vexatious litigant list, having appeared on the list based on false evidence that since was reversed, it said. Before the McAfee lawsuit, Linlor hadn’t filed any cases in California courts since 2017, nor does he have a history of “unwarranted litigation,” it said.