MEMORANDUM OF POINTS & AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION AS TO THE ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION ========================= ANTHONY TEMPLER / CURRENTLY RESIDING AT: Zille Str. 69, 10575 BERLIN, GERMANY LAST KNOWN USA ADDRESS: ANTHONY TEMPLER/ ATANDA WEB PRESENCE SERVICES 939 61ST STREET, SUITE #13 OAKLAND, CA 94608-1301 ------------------------------------------------------------- GAP INTERNATIONAL INC. 700 OLD MARPLE ROAD, SPRINGFIELD, PENNSYLVANIA ---------------------------------------------------------- MORE INFORMATION ON THE THEFT: http://www.win-tv.net/GAP_WINTV_Site/GAP_WIN-Tv_Website_Theft.html ----------------------------------------------------------

1. 1 Mattaniah Eytan (State Bar No. 68561)
Eric Schenk (State Bar No. 100193)
2 LAW OFFICES OF MATTANIAH EYTAN
21 Tamal Vista Blvd., Suite 219
3 Corte Madera, CA 94925
4 Counsel for plaintiff Gerard Angé; in his individual capacity
and as assignee forWorld Indigenous Network Corporation; and
5 G.A.P. International
6
7 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
8 COUNTY OF ALAMEDA – UNLIMITED CIVIL JURISDICTION
9 GERARD ANGÉ, an individual, etc. ) Case No. RG0 5241337
)
10 Plaintiff, ) MEMORANDUM OF POINTS &
) AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF
11 v. ) MOTION FOR SUMMARY
) ADJUDICATION AS TO THE
12 ANTHONY TEMPLER et al. ) ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
)
13 Defendants. ) Date:
) Time:
14 ) Dept:
)
15 And Related Cross-complaints. ) Trial Date: August , 2007
)
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Mem P&A’s re MSA
F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd

2. 1 I. INTRODUCTION
2 This case, in relevant part, involves a dispute over the right to a particular internet
3 domain name: gapinternational.com.1 The dispute is between G.A.P. International, Inc.(“G.A.P.
4 CA”), a California corporation that provides satellite hookups for transmission of live events
5 and GAP International, Inc.(“GAP PA”) , a Pennsylvania corporation, that provides consulting
6 services and motivation programs for businesses.
7 G.A.P. CA acquired and began using the domain name, gapinternational.com in January
8 2000.2 It had put up a website with that web address consisting of numerous pages explaining its
9 business and services.3 In 2003, GAP PA became interested in acquiring the rights to the domain
10 name.4 It contacted the company hosting the G.A.P. CA website, Atanda, a sole proprietorship
11 owned by Anthony Templer, and proceeded to purchase the domain name from Templer despite
12 the fact that GAP PA was on notice that Templer could not possibly be the legitimate owner of
13 the domain name. Since that time, GAP PA has refused G.A.P. CA’s demand that it return the
14 stolen domain name, compelling G.A.P. CA’s principal, Gerard Angé to bring this lawsuit.
15 The Eleventh Cause of Action in the Complaint seeks declaratory relief as to the right to
16 ownership and control of the domain name. G.A.P. CA’s right to the domain name rests on the
17 undisputed material facts that the domain name was embezzled by defendant Anthony Templer
18
19 1
A primer on the workings of the internet and the nature of “domain names” (as well as
the impact of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, codified as 15 USC §§ 1125,
20
1127) is set out in Background section of Sporty’s Farm LLC v. Sportsman’S Market, Inc. (2d
21 Cir. 2000) 202 F.3d 489, 492 – 496. That section of Sporty’s Farm LLC is attached to this
memorandum as a reference.
22 2
Declaration of Gerard Angé (“Angé Dec”) at paragraph 2.
23
3
Angé Dec at paragraph 12 and, e.g., Exhibit D.
24
4
The references in this paragraph to GAP PA’s conduct are taken from the Deposition
25 of Jon Greenawalt (“Greenawalt Dep”) See discussion in the Factual Background section that
follows for the specific citations to supporting evidence. The relevant pages of the Greenawalt
26 Dep are attached as Exhibit D to the Declaration of Eric Schenk (“Schenk Dec”) .
Mem P&A’s re MSA
1 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd

3. 1 dba Atanda Web Hosting; and then GAP PA, having notice that Templer was not the legitimate
2 owner, purchased the rights to the domain name from Templer.
3 II. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
4 A. G.A.P. CA acquires domain name in 2000.
5 Gerard Angé incorporated a company, Gerard Angé Productions International, Inc. as a
6 California corporation in September 2000.5 For obvious reasons, the company was commonly
7 known as G.A.P. International (“G.A.P. CA”) and was identified as such on its stationery and on
8 the website it acquired.6 Prior to incorporation, in January 2000, Angé, registered the domain
9 name, gapinternational.com for G.A.P. CA through a webhosting company, Quickbooks.7
10 QuickBooks obtained the domain name for G.A.P. CA via the registry Melbourne IT, a company
11 headquartered in Melbourne, Australia.8
12 B. G.A.P. CA hires Templer to host the gapinternational.com website.
13 In March 2002, QuickBooks informed G.A.P. CA that it (QuickBooks) would no longer
14 be providing webhosting services and instructed G.A.P. CA to arrange for some other company
15 to takeover those services for G.A.P. CA.9 Angé learned that Anthony Templer provided
16 webhosting services along with other website-related services and contracted with Templer dba
17 Atanda Web Presence Services to take over webhosting for the gapinternational.com domain on
18 behalf of G.A.P. CA.10
19
20
5
Angé Dec, at paragraph 3 and Exhibit B.
21
6
See Angé Dec at Exhibits C and D.
22
7
Id. at paragraph 2 and Exhibit A.
23
8
See Angé Dec at paragraph 4.
24
9
Ibid.
25
10
Id. at paragraph 4 and 5 and Deposition of Anthony Templer attached as Exhibit C to
26 Schenk Dec (“Templer Depo”) at 5:23 – 53:11 and corresponding Exhibit 3.
Mem P&A’s re MSA
2 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd

4. 1 C. Templer embezzles rights to domain name in 2002.
2 In April 2002, Templer obtained the codes from G.A.P. CA for the sole purpose of
3 allowing Templer to take over webhosting from Quickbooks.11 Ange never suggested to
4 Templer that Angé or G.A.P. CA was transferring any sort of ownership interest or rights in the
5 gapinternational.com domain name to Templer or Atanda and Templer never suggested to Angé
6 or G.A.P. CA that he (Templer ) believed or understood that Angé or G.A.P. CA intended to
7 transfer any rights in the gapinternational.com domain name to Templer or Atanda.12 As far as
8 G.A.P. CA knew, the administrative contact for the domain name remained “Gerard Angé.”13
9 Templer apparently had an arrangement with another registry company, Tucows, to serve
10 as a domain name reseller.14 Accordingly, at the end of January 2003, prior to the expiration of
11 G.A.P. CA’s the registration of gapinternational.com domain name through Melbourne IT,
12 Templer arranged to have renew the registration of the domain name and have it registered with
13 Tucows.15 Templer understood that Angé was to remain the registrant for the
14 gapinternational.com domain name even after the transfer and acknowledged that in renewing
15 the rights to the gapinternational.com domain name, he purportedly retained Angé as the
16 registrant..16 Templer paid ten dollars to transfer the domain name registration and intended to
17 charge Angé twenty five dollars regarding the re-registration of gapinternational.com.17 But
18
19 11
Angé Dec at paragraph 6 .
20
12
Id. at paragraph 11.
21
13
Id. at paragraphs 7 and 8 and reference to Exhibit D.
22
14
Templer Depo at 92:25 – 93:11.
23
15
Id. at 92:12 – 21, 103:10 – 105:13, 107:1 – 109:12 and corresponding Exhibits 27 and
24 29.
25 16
Id. at 108:22 – 109:12.
26 17
Id. at 104:23 – 105:13.
Mem P&A’s re MSA
3 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd

5. 1 there is no invoice that specifically references this charge.18
2
3 D. GAP PA, interested in buying the domain name, learns that it is associated
with G.A.P. CA and that Templer hosts the website for G.A.P. CA.
4
5 Meanwhile, on the east coast, there was a company headquartered near Philadelphia
6 incorporated under Pennsylvania law as GAP International, Inc. (“GAP PA”).19 In around the
7 fall of 2003, Jon Greenawalt in GAP PA’s marketing department began investigating whether
8 GAP PA could obtain the domain name gapinternational.com.20 Greenawalt typed in the domain
9 name gapinternational.com into his computer and arrived at G.A.P. CA’s website. The “entry”
10 page at the website identified the enterprise as G.A.P. International Broadcast Services Division.
11 The page states:
12 Welcome to The G.A.P. INTERNATIONAL website providing the following
television & satellite services:
13
THE GAP SATELLITE NETWORK
14 Providing a world-wide Television Solution via a secure “conditional access”
Digital Platform for Private Businesses and Entertainment Television.
15
THE GAP BROADCAST SERVICES DIVISION
16 Provider of Liver Television Production Services, Satellite Broadcasting Services,
Webcasting and Extreme Webcasting Services World-Wide.21
17
18 At the bottom of that page, Atanda Web Presence Services was listed as the company
19
20
21
18
22 See Exhibits 15 and 45 to Templer Depo. By comparison, when Templer complained
to Angé about not being paid the twenty five dollar “out of pocket” cost for re-registration of the
23 wintv.net domain name, Angé paid it. See Exhibits 36 and 38 to Templer Depo.
24 19
See GAP PA’s Counterclaims, at paragraph 7.
25 20
Greenawalt Depo at 17:5 – 16.
26 21
Id. at 17:18 – 25:22 and Angé Dec at paragraph 14 and corresponding Exhibit E.
Mem P&A’s re MSA
4 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd

6. 1 providing web hosting services.22 The website consisted of numerous web pages describing the
2 various services that G.A.P. CA could provide and listing numerous contacts.23 The contact
3 numbers and email addresses provided read as follows:
4 G.A.P. INTERNATIONAL
P.O. Box 4110, San Rafael, CA 94913
5 USA
6 Booking: (800) 334-7782
Fax: (415) 388-7768
7 The GAP Satellite Network
24 HR Access (877) 597-1999
8
9 email:
10 Network Booking @gapinternational.com
11 Phone: 1(415) 388-7785
12 Fax: (415) 388-7768
13 Email: info@gapinternational.com24
14 E. GAP PA arranges to buy domain name from likely cybersquatter.
15 Greenawalt claims that he attempted to telephone all of the listed numbers without
16 reaching anyone. He claims that at that point, after waiting about two months, he then did some
17 research and obtained contact information for Atanda, Templer’s company.25 In fact, GAP PA
18 visited Atanda’s website to investigate what business Atanda was in.26 That website stated that
19 Atanda was engaged in the business of web hosting, web design, web development, web
20
22
21 Id. at 31:22 – 32:2 and Angé Dec at paragraph 14 and corresponding Exhibit E .
23
22 Greenawalt has no recollection of what he saw when he visited the website other than
that there was an “entry” page of some sort with numerous hyperlinks including a “Contact Us”
23 link. See Greenawalt Depo at 21:16 – 25:22 and corresponding Exhibit G-5.
24 24
Greenawalt Depo 17:18 – 18:6, 21:16 – 23:7 and page 9 of Exhibit G5.
25 25
Id. at 29:20 – 24.
26 26
Id. at 45:17 – 19.
Mem P&A’s re MSA
5 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd

7. 1 mastering and web name registration.27 Other than the fact that Atanda was listed as the owner
2 of the gapinternational.com domain name, GAP PA, despite its investigation, did not find any
3 evidence that Atanda had any legitimate use for the domain name gapinternational.com.28 On
4 October 17, 2003, Greenawalt sent an email to the following email addresses:
5 info@gapinternational.com, info@WorldIndigenousNetwork.com, support@Atanda.com, and
6 billing@Atanda.com. inquiring about the availability of the domain name.29 These emails
7 establish that GAP PA was aware that a domain name existed for Atanda.com.
8 Angé had no desire to sell the domain name and so ignored Greenawalt’s email.30 But
9 Templer responded to the email directed to his email addresses, support@Atanda.com and
10 billing@Atanda.com , stating that he was willing to sell the gapinternational.com domain name
11 to GAP PA. GAP PA knew at the time about “cybersquatting,” which it understood to be
12 “people who purchase domains for the reason no other than to sit on them and sell them.”31 And
13 GAP PA knew of no possible commercial connection between Atanda and the domain name
14 gapinternational.com.32 The only apparent connection was the fact that Atanda was listed as
15 providing web hosting services for the G.A.P. CA website. In other words, GAP PA was on
16 notice that Templer was in the perfect position to embezzle the rights to the domain name.
17 Nonetheless, GAP PA agreed to purchase the domain name, along with another domain name,
18 gapuniversity.com, from Templer for a total price of $12,500. No one at G.A.P. CA was
19 consulted on or approved of this sale. The sale was completed on or about November 18, 2003.
20
27
21 Schenk Dec; Exhibit , Atanda Web Presence Services website entry page.
28
22 Greenawalt depo at 42:1 – 46:14.
23 29
Id. at 27:9 – 29:9 and corresponding Exhibit G-6.
24 30
Angé Dec at paragraphs 13 and 14.
25 31
Greenawalt Depo at 31:12 – 15.
26 32
Id. at 31:22 – 32:8.
Mem P&A’s re MSA
6 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd

8. 1 Within a few days, Angé discovered that his email service was down and his website
2 was gone.33 After doing some investigating, he learned that the gapinternational.com domain
3 name was now controlled by GAP PA.34 On December 5, 2003, Angé telephoned Greenawalt
4 and heatedly informed Greenawalt that G.A.P. CA was the owner of the gapinternational.com
5 domain name and demanded it back. Greenawalt hung up on Angé.35
6 After getting off the telephone with Angé, Greenawalt sent Templer the following email:
7 The so-called president of G.A.P. International called me today furious, saying
that we bought “stolen property.” He says that you sold the domain
8 gapinternational.com without his consent. He says that he owns the domain and
that you were just his “web guy.” Do we have a problem here? Please contact
9 me ASAP so that we can resolve this issue.36
10 In other words, GAP PA had received from a business with a legitimate reason to have
11 the gapinternational.com domain name the only logical explanation for the facts surrounding
12 Atanda’s being in “control” of a domain name unrelated to any business activity Atanda
13 conducted. GAP PA admitted in its email to Templer that there was an “issue” that had to be
14 “resolved,” i.e., who legitimately owned gapinternational.com at the time GAP PA bought it.
15 Templer then responded by informing GAP PA that, in fact, Atanda had “acquired” the
16 gapinternational.com domain name only in connection with services that it was to provide
17 G.A.P. CA and Atanda’s, on its own, had no legitimate commercial interest in that domain name:
18 No, we don’t have a problem here. I was the official owner of the registration of
gapinternational.com prior to my selling to to your company. Gerard Angé did
19 contract with my company for services using that domain name several years ago.
At the time that we began providing him with service, he had let the domain name
20 lapse and we had to take action in order to acquire the domain name. Having
been forewarned of possible fiscal problems, we made sure that the actual
21 ownership was in our name. . . . Before I completed the sale to your company, I
made a final effort to deliver, via registered mail, a demand letter giving him
22
23 33
Angé Dec at paragraph 16.
24 34
Ibid.
25 35
Id. at paragraph 17.
26 36
Exhibit G9 to Greenawalt Dep, p. 1.
Mem P&A’s re MSA
7 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd

9. 1 notice to contact me and make payment in full, or I would take any actions
available to me to get restitution for his outstanding debt. . . . It is not surprising,
2 though regrettable that he has attempted to change reality through bluster and
bluff, but he had no legal claim and has no legal position to argue my sale of the
3 domain name. [sic]37
4
GAP PA now knew that Atanda had sold the domain held in trust for G.A.P. CA as a
5
form of self-help. Despite the fact that it now had undisputed evidence that Atanda had no
6
legitimate ownership rights in gapinternational.com at the time it was sold to GAP PA, GAP PA
7
shamelessly adopted Templer’s legal analysis that G.A.P. CA had no basis for challenging the
8
sale and rejected G.A.P. CA demand that it (GAP PA) return the stolen property.
9
This lawsuit followed.
10
11
III. LEGAL ARGUMENT
12
A. A Party Is Entitled to Summary Adjudication Where, as Here, There
13 Is No Dispute as to Material Facts.
14 Principles governing summary judgment also apply to summary adjudication.38 The
15 matter to be determined by the trial court in considering a motion of summary adjudication in
16 favor of the plaintiff is whether the defendant has presented any facts which give rise to a triable
17 issue. Summary judgment is proper if plaintiff’s evidence in support would be sufficient to
18 sustain a judgment in his favor and defendant does not show such facts as may be deemed by the
19 judge hearing the motion sufficient to present a triable issue.39
20
B. The “Sale” of the Domain Name to Gap Pa Was Not Valid Because
21 Gap Pa Purchased Stolen Property with Notice That the Seller Likely
Was Not the Real Owner.
22
23
37
Id. at p. 2.
24
38
Grant-Burton v. Covenant Care, Inc.(2002) 99 Cal.App.4th 1361, 1370, citing Lomes
25 v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc. (2001) 88 Cal.App.4th 127, 131
26 39
See Wozniak v. Peninsula Hospital (1969) 1 Cal.App.3d 716, 722.
Mem P&A’s re MSA
8 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd

10. 1 1. The domain name sold to GAP PA was stolen property.
2 Conversion is essentially the civil name for theft.40 Theft of a domain name has
3 expressly been recognized as conversion.41 One who appropriates property that has been
4 entrusted to him is guilty of embezzlement.42 In the instant case, G.A.P. CA through Gerard
5 Angé owned the rights to the domain name gapinternational.com. For purposes of the web
6 hosting services defendant Anthony Templer dba Atanda Web Services was to provide, G.A.P.
7 CA entrusted Templer with access to codes. Templer, without authorization, used the codes to
8 change the name of the listed owner to himself so that he could then sell the domain name.
9 Accordingly, Templer embezzled the rights to the domain name and, hence, at the time Templer
10 sold the domain name to GAP PA, it was stolen property.
11
12 2. At the time GAP PA purchased the domain name, GAP PA was on
notice that the domain name was stolen property.
13
14 I When GAP PA first became interested in purchasing the domain name
15 gapinternational.com, it checked to see if there already was someone using that domain name by
16 going to that domain name on a computer. Clicking on that domain name, it arrived at a web
17 page for GAP CA that identified the enterprise as G.A.P. International Broadcast Services
18 Division. GAP PA learned that the domain name was being used by a company claiming to be
19 in the business of providing remote television broadcast services. The bottom of the page
20 contained notice that the website was “hosted by Atanda web presence services.” GAP PA did
21 research on Atanda and discovered the existence of the domain name, Atanda.com. The web
22
40
See, e.g., AmerUS Life Ins. Co. v. Bank of America, N.A. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 631,
23 640 (“for the sake of completeness, we note that In 1982 the Legislature amended the three-year
statute of limitations on actions involving conversion and expressly adopted the discovery rule
24 for theft of certain types of articles [Code of Civil Procedure section 338, subdivision (c)].”.
25 41
See Kremen v. Cohen (9th Cir. 2003) 337 F.3d 1024, 1029 – 1036.
26 42
Penal Code § 484(a), see discussion at Witkin, Criminal Law (3rd Ed.) at § 26, p. 46.
Mem P&A’s re MSA
9 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd

11. 1 page for Atanda.com lists the businesses in which Atanda engaged in, including web hosting and
2 web name registration. Not only is there no suggestion that Atanda had any connection with the
3 sort of businesses that the gapinternational.com web page discussed, but the fact that Atanda was
4 engaged in web name registration put GAP PA on notice that Atanda’s “possession” of the
5 domain name, gapinternational.com was not connected to any legitimate commercial use Atanda
6 had in the domain name.
7 GAP PA knew at the time about “cybersquatting,” and knew of no possible commercial
8 connection between Atanda and the domain name gapinternational.com. After visiting the
9 gapinternational.com website, GAP PA knew that some company using that domain name had a
10 business that used the name G.A.P. International. Hence, GAP PA was on notice that Atanda
11 held the domain name gapinternational.com either in trust for G.A.P. CA or as stolen property.
12 In either case, GAP PA did not have a good faith belief that it was purchasing the domain name
13 from the legitimate owner. Ownership of property in California means the “right of one or more
14 persons to possess and use it to the exclusion of others.43 Clearly, GAP PA was on notice that
15 Atanda did not have the right to possess the domain name to the exclusion of G.A.P. CA.
16 The law governing the crime of receipt of stolen property provides an appropriate
17 framework for analyzing GAP PA’s position here. As stated in People v. Boinus,:
18 Although guilty knowledge of the fact that the property was stolen is an essential
fact to be proved in a prosecution for receiving stolen property, such knowledge
19 need not be that actual and positive knowledge which is acquired from personal
observation of the fact. It is not necessary that the defendant be told directly that
20 the property was stolen. Knowledge may be circumstantial and deductive.44
21 Here, GAP PA knew:
22
43
23 Civil Code § 654; see 13 Witkin, Summary of California Law (10th Ed.), Personal
Property § 1, p. 5.
24
44
People v. Boinus (1957) 153 Cal.App.2d 618, 621-622; citing People v. Boyden
25 (1953) 116 Cal. App.2d 278, 287; People v. DeVaughn (1934)136 Cal.App. 746, 751; People v.
Bycel (1955) 133 Cal.App.2d 596, 599; and People v. Hartridge (1955) 134 Cal.App.2d 659,
26
665.
Mem P&A’s re MSA
10 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd

12. 1 ‚ The website had been devoted to G.A.P. CA, a company in the business of
2 providing remote television broadcast services
3 ‚ The website was hosted by Atanda
4 ‚ Atanda’s listed businesses included webhosting and web name registration, but
5 did not include providing remote television broadcast services
6 ‚ GAP PA knew that in order for Atanda to have the legitimate right to possess and
7 sell the domain name, Atanda had to have some legitimate commercial use for the
8 domain name gapinternational.com
9 ‚ GAP PA researched Atanda in connection with the gapinternational.com domain
10 name.
11 ‚ GAP PA found no legitimate commercial use that Atanda had for the
12 gapinternational.com.
13 In other words, GAP PA was immersed in the fishy smell of an illegitimate transaction.
14 GAP PA loudly protested several times that Atanda was not engaged in cybersquatting. But, as
15 the old saw goes, “Saying it don’t make it so.” The only “evidence” GAP PA offered to
16 establish that Atanda was not engaged in cybersquatting was the fact Atanda was the registered
17 owner of the domain name. Curiously, being the registered owner of the particular domain name
18 is a essential requirement of cybersquatting.
19 The undisputed facts establish that GAP PA had the circumstantial and deductive
20 knowledge that Atanda was not the legitimate owner of the domain name. Given that such facts
21 would be sufficient to support a conviction for receipt of stolen goods, it is true, a fortiori, that
22 the facts establish for purposes of tort law that GAP PA did not have a good faith belief that it
23 was buying the domain name from a party with the right to sell it.
24 Even if GAP PA had not been aware of the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act
25
26
Mem P&A’s re MSA
11 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd

13. 1 (“ACPA”) ,45 the existence of such a law would have served as constructive notice to GAP PA
2 that in purchasing a domain name from a seller that had no apparent commercial connection to
3 the mark that it might be an illegitimate sale.
4 But, here, not only did GAP PA know of the ACPA and that Atanda was a web hosting
5 company, but, prior to the sale, it knew that Atanda was hosting a website at that domain for a
6 company identifying itself as G.A.P. International and that G.A.P. CA business (e.g., remote
7 video transmission) was not among the businesses that Atanda conducted. In short, not only did
8 GAP PA have clear notice that it was facilitating a cybersquatter, but it had clear notice that it
9 was purchasing the domain name from an embezzler.
10 Obviously, if Atanda, in connection with the embezzlement, still held title to the domain
11 name, G.A.P. CA would be entitled to an order restoring title to G.A.P. CA.46 Having obtained
12 property that it was on notice was stolen from the embezzler, GAP PA has no greater rights to
13 the property than the embezzler.
14 Where goods are taken from the fraudulent possessor with knowledge of the fraud, or
with knowledge of such facts and circumstances as would have put cautious and prudent
15 men on inquiry, even though full value has been paid for the property, or where, in
general, the transactions involved do not operate to transfer the title to the goods.47
16
Hence, Angé is now entitled to summary adjudication of the eleventh cause of action and
17
a declaration stating that the domain name was and remains his property against any claim by
18
GAP PA.
19
III. CONCLUSION
20
A calculation of damages related to the theft of plaintiff’s domain name may be
21
complicated in this matter, but the issue of ownership of the domain name is not. Angé was
22
indisputably the owner of the domain name. The rights to that domain name were indisputably
23
24 45
15 USC §§ 1125, 1127.
25 46
4 Witkin, Cal. Procedure 4th (1997) Plead, § 531, p. 618.
26 47
Oakdale Village Group v. Fong (1996) 43 Cal.App.4th 539, 546.
Mem P&A’s re MSA
12 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd

14. 1 embezzled by Templer based on some misguided notion of a right to “self help.” GAP PA was
2 on clear notice that Templer was likely not the equitable owner of the domain name and yet
3 proceeded to purchase the domain name from Templer and then refused to return the stolen
4 property when Angé demanded it.
5 GAP PA has no legitimate claim to the domain name, only a claim against Templer
6 which it has declined to pursue. G.A.P. CA is entitled to summary judgment on the Eleventh
7 Cause of Action declaring it the legal and equitable owner of the domain name
8 gapinternational.com.
9
10 Respectfully submitted,
11 LAW OFFICES OF MATTANIAH EYTAN
12
13
14 Date: April 3, 2007 By: _______________________________
Eric Schenk
15 Attorneys for plaintiff Gerard Angé
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
Mem P&A’s re MSA
13 F:ANGEMSAmem p&a.wpd