Dear Sir

I understand your frustration. This is a new position taken because of
recent events.

The terms to state in the last paragraph , not to use the term MET in any domain.

I am just support, I can turn you back on , while the manager and lawyer
look at your case specifically.
We have turned off a number of accounts.

We did send out an email to the account email address and did not get a
response from you.

The main thing they want is for affiliates to use a domain without the MET in it.

Thank you for your email
Sincerely,
Damon at Met-art.com

Support METART (02:40:50 18/04/2009)
I can turn it on, and you can have 2 months to start work on getting another domain.

Support METART (02:41:13 18/04/2009)
In 2 months you can ask for more time if you need it too.

Met-Art holds federal trademark registrations in the United States for
METART, METART FINE PHOTOGRAPHY, and METGIRLS (U.S. Registration Nos.
3152759, 2908577and 3152760 respectively) as well as numerous common law
trademarks. You may confirm this for yourself at the US Patent and Trademark
Office website, uspto.gov. And as you have noted, Met-Art's rights in
these trademarks have been recognized in arbitrations before the World
Intellectual Property Organization. See Metropolitan Life Insurance Company
v. HLP General Partners Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2005-1323; Hydentra LP v. Xedoc
Holding SA, WIPO Case No. D2008-0454.

We do not disagree that the terms 'Met' and 'Art' are common words in the
English language, but we strongly disagree with your conclusion that this
means that Met-Art's rights are limited to a combination of those two terms,
as our federal registration for METGIRLS indicates. In the specific context
of websites (and other offerings) focused on high-quality nude photography,
we believe that Met-Art clearly has established a family of MET trademarks,
which includes not just variations of the term MET ART, but other marks such
as METGIRLS, METCAMS, METCASH and the like, with the dominant and consistent
portion of the marks being the term MET. The WIPO case involving MetLife to
which you cited is a good point of reference. Within the specific context
of insurance products, MetLife held a large family of marks beginning with
the term "Met"; Met-Art's domains did not violate the UDRP rules because,
among other reasons, the two parties' respective families of marks were
simply in different markets. Your domain, to the contrary, is not in a
different market, but is in the precise market in which Met-Art operates --
and indeed, you chose the domain names in question precisely because they
incorporated Met-Art's trademark and would call to mind Met-Art.