Ripped MMA / exfatkid / ryansrippedcombo / stevegotripped Supplements Scam

**BSDaemon** · Posted On: 10/09/2009 5:46pm

the server is NOT offshore, its located in Illinois:

$ whois 69.65.39.219

OrgName: GigeNET
OrgID: ECOMD
Address: 545 E. Algonquin Rd
Address: Suite D
City: Arlington Heights
StateProv: IL
PostalCode: 60005
Country: US

ReferralServer: rwhois://rwhois.servernap.net:4321

NetRange: 69.65.0.0 - 69.65.63.255
CIDR: 69.65.0.0/18
NetName: IPNAP
NetHandle: NET-69-65-0-0-1
Parent: NET-69-0-0-0-0
NetType: Direct Allocation
NameServer: NS1.SERVERNAP.COM
NameServer: NS2.SERVERNAP.COM
NameServer: NS3.IAD.SERVERNAP.COM
Comment: www.gigenet.com
RegDate: 2003-07-30
Updated: 2006-01-23

OrgTechHandle: IPADM152-ARIN
OrgTechName: IP Administrator
OrgTechPhone: +1-800-561-2656
OrgTechEmail: ip-admin@coloquest.com

**BSDaemon** · Posted On: 10/09/2009 8:23pm

RippedMMA.com

# whois 207.210.125.34

Spoiler:

bing ip:207.210.125.34

Lots of legit sites, must be a shared server, some not so legit sounding:

# whois leetcash.com

Spoiler:

Same server, same DNS privacy provider. However, even the legit sites on that server use the same one on Sepulveda.

scan & trace

Spoiler:

So the actual host name of the server is barker.hostingzoom.com

We'll need to contact that ISP's abuse department once we've gathered enough information.

They have a pretty strict terms of service:

http://www.hostingzoom.com/aup.php

So its reasonable to assume that hostingzoom would be able to identify the perpetrators if they were served a subpoena.

What I'm afraid of, is that tricking people into accepting fine print is not necessarily illegal, credit card companies do it every day. However running such a massive scam from a Cyprus tax haven almost certainly will cause some concern in some government agency. I fully intend to see to the feds getting on this case and shut these bastards down, there must be a large number of victims out there considering the scale of the scheme.

**Iainkelt** · Posted On: 10/10/2009 12:06am

As a side note, their comment about having found the pictures and believing them to be in the public domain isn't really the issue.

If, in fact, the celebrities pictured in these ads didn't consent to the use of their picture then they very well could have a claim for misappropriation of their image. Granted, a lot more information would be needed, but it wouldn't be a novel claim apart from the possible international flavor depending on where the company is actually located. I just liked how they threw that in there, as if it indemnifies them from liability.

Just my .02 (and yeah I'm a lawyer but I don't do litigation, and the law changes from state to state so your results may vary blah blah blah)

**BSDaemon** · Posted On: 10/10/2009 5:27pm

So it's an offshore company, misappropriating the likeness and image of celebrities as well as ordinary people, attempting to lure unsuspecting people who don't read the fine print in to large recurring credit card billing situations for questionable products & services. Run out of Cyprus, with web servers in Indiana and Atlanta, post office boxes in Utah.

My wild ass guess is that there is somebody in Utah running this, not Cyprus.

**bobyclumsyninja** · Posted On: 10/11/2009 1:51pm

Originally Posted by Iainkelt

As a side note, their comment about having found the pictures and believing them to be in the public domain isn't really the issue.

rights of publicity/image vary, depending where you are, but there's no right to commercially use likenesses of celebs unless specifically granted contractually.

What a reasonable person would induce, is the standard for false adv. There's a potential phat law suit in this, for the entity that controls likeness rights (be it, fighter, agent, mgr, promoter etc).

In contracts, for music gigs, it's in there that likeness/name/tradmarks will be used to promote said event. Even under contract for services, there's no blanket use of image/brand etc unless granted formally.

**bobyclumsyninja** · Posted On: 10/11/2009 1:55pm

For GSP and Thialgo, contact ZUFFA. They control the likeness rights, and they don't play. They stand to have their brand weakened, under the terms of their deals w/ UFC fighters. (I think they control something like 80% of the royalty?, and all the rights to use, as it pertains to fighting).

At least I think so. If I'm remembering correctly...through the haze of a last-night gig, and a violent assault during the afternoon....beer and bruises.

**Demilich** · Posted On: 10/12/2009 12:10am

I've seen these ads on YouTube quite a bit lately, whenever you search for a "grappling" "jiu jistu" or "mma" video.

**Iainkelt** · Posted On: 10/12/2009 10:04am

Originally Posted by bobyclumsyninja

rights of publicity/image vary, depending where you are, but there's no right to commercially use likenesses of celebs unless specifically granted contractually.

What a reasonable person would induce, is the standard for false adv. There's a potential phat law suit in this, for the entity that controls likeness rights (be it, fighter, agent, mgr, promoter etc).

In contracts, for music gigs, it's in there that likeness/name/tradmarks will be used to promote said event. Even under contract for services, there's no blanket use of image/brand etc unless granted formally.

Exactly. You or I can take pictures in public (or anywhere else we have a legal right to be) and we would own the copyright to the photo as a general principle. We can also take that picture and sell copies of the picture, sell the copyright itself, license the copyright, or put it into the general domain for others to use (with varying degrees of rights of use) etc. However, that doesn't mean we can use pictures of random people for a commerical purpose without authorization by that person or some other justification.

As far as any UFC fighters included in this ad, I would definitely recommend that you contact the Zuffa itself. Having sent a large number of cease and desist letters myself I can guarantee you that companies tend to take this issue very seriously.

**littleoldme** · Posted On: 10/12/2009 4:14pm

Extended passing off

One of the instances where passing off is actionable is the extended form of passing off, where a defendant's misrepresentation as to the particular quality of a product or services causes harm to the plaintiff's goodwill. An example of this is Erven Warnink v J Townsend & Sons (Hull) Ltd [1979] AC 731, in which the makers of advocaat sued a manufacturer of a drink similar but not identical to advocaat, but which was successfully marketed as being advocaat.

The extended form of passing off is used by celebrities as a means of enforcing their personality rights in common law jurisdictions. Common law jurisdictions (with the exception of Jamaica) do not recognise personality rights as rights of property. Accordingly, celebrities whose images or names have been used can successfully sue if there is a representation that a product or service is being endorsed or sponsored by the celebrity or that the use of the likeness of the celebrity was authorised when this is not true.

(emphasis mine)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passing_off

IINAL. etc.

**notkevin** · Posted On: 10/27/2009 4:13pm

Nice work - good to see somebody doing something about these slimy sewer slugs instead of just complaining. I have been looking into these scams for a few months now and can fill in a few more details.

Farend Services Limited (With a Cyprus address and a Utah address) is one of the dba names of a company called Just Think Media, who have an 'interesting' background: http://www.webcops.net/just_think_me...cams_8001.html

They also dba JDW Media (named after the owner Jesse D Willms) and are being sued by Oprah for using her image to sell Acai pills:
http://strangelyperfect.tv/6305/mona...est-and-oprah/

Farend Services is just a Cyprus shell company but the Idaho address is also linked to that name:
http://www.scamtimes.com/product-sca...cyprus-shells/

There are basically 3 parties to these scams:

1)CPA affiliates
2)CPA networks
3) The company with the 'offer' eg: Just Think Media

The crappy fake blogs (flogs) are created by affiliates of the cpa networks. THey get paid around $40 for each sign up to the 'free trial'. They hide behind whois privacy but most are in the USA - the 'does business outside the USA' crap is just a worthless disclaimer like all the other nonsense about fair use of images etc. They think that gets them off the hook and saying they are outside the USA means the FTC will leave them alone. Not true of course.

THe CPA networks are affiliate networks which are the 'middlemen' between the affiliates and the company - they pay the affiliates, charge the company, track the links etc. To find any of them just go to findaffiiateoffers.com and type in the name of one of the offers or just a word like acai etc...

As you discovered they are also behind a lot of scams using/abusing the Google brand name and there are many links to Utah too:
http://strangelyperfect.tv/4308/goog...ame-same-scam/

Hope that helps and good work on the research!