McAfee Blasts Cybersquatting Plaintiff as ‘Prone to Name Calling’
Plaintiff James Linlor’s opposition to McAfee’s motion to dismiss his amended cybersquatting complaint does little more than demonstrate that Linlor “is indeed a vexatious litigant prone to name calling and wasting judicial and party resources,” said McAfee’s reply Tuesday (docket…
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.
5:23-cv-00385) in U.S. District Court for Northern California in San Jose in support of its motion. Linlor alleges McAfee deprived him of using the Cyberguard.com internet domain to start a cybersecurity consultancy, but McAfee says it sold the domain in 2021 as part of its divestiture of the enterprise security business (see 2301310011). Dismissal of Linlor’s amended complaint with prejudice is “warranted” due to the failure of his Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act claim as a matter of law, said McAfee. But should the case proceed, McAfee asks that Linlor’s “vexatious behavior be curbed so that resources may be appropriately directed to substantive legal arguments,” it said.