information Brent Oxley Loses Access to Create.com, Plus Millions of Dollars Worth of His Domains

[James Iles]

Brent Oxley, the founder of HostGator, has been accruing a portfolio of ultra-premium domain names since he sold his hosting company for close to $300 million in 2013.

With purchases such as Give.com for $500,000, Broker.com for $375,000, and Texas.com for $1,007,500, Oxley has spent millions of dollars over the past few years accumulating this collection. According to his website, the portfolio is worth more than $25 million.

Oxley has now, however, lost access to a proportion of his portfolio

Read the full report on my blog

 

[tonyk2000]

@Paul Nicks :
GoDaddy should also clarify jurisdictions issue. What will happen should GD receive conflicting orders from different courts located in different jurisdictions??? About the same domain name??? The answer is simple - it should be an order from a court located at the principal place of business of the registrar (Arizona?), or, in case of any foreign court involved, their order should be confirmed by the same Arizona court. Common sense...

Also, whether GD runs another company lets say on a Moon or Mars should have little relevance here. If we are speaking about GTLD domains at least - then the services are ultimately provided by the "main" GD, from Arizona, aren't they? Which is also applicable to registrants who are also located on a Moon or Mars, where GD has a local company. Why this happened? OK, maybe to let the registrant pay in the local currency, or to comply with some local laws, but, even in this case, neither GoDaddy Moon nor GoDaddy Mars are ICANN-accredited registrars in the 1st place!

 

[Sutruk]

International laws are intricate. Only a lawyer can really tell us how it works. What happens when both parties are from outside the US or the complainant is from the US and the registrant from India?

In case of domain names, I think it is assumed by all Registrar TOS that the jurisdiction is that of the Registrar location.
The problem with Godaddy is that it has legal presence in 53 countries. Then they should state on their TOS what happens in that case. But they should protect the rights of their customer, who is paying for the asset.
If it would be a land or a house, it would prevail the country of the asset without a doubt.

 

[FolioTeam]

Please see the provisos at the bottom of my post: "Domains should only be locked by the registrars IF a court order in the correct jurisdiction exists OR there is clear evidence of the likelihood of theft of the domain having occurred."

I think that covers the situation you mention.

So, what happens if hypothetically a judgement comes through but in the interim, registrant details have changed? Doesn't that complicate the issue? Will the new registrant who rightfully paid for a domain be forced to bear the brunt of a preceding case?

 

[FolioTeam]

The problem with Godaddy is that it has legal presence in 53 countries. Then they should state on their TOS what happens in that case.

Exactly

 

[Sutruk]

Exactly

Looking at their TOS: (although I think this is not for the cases where the two parties in a dispute are from different countries).

22. DISPUTES, BINDING INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION AND WAIVER OF CLASS ACTIONS AND CLASS ARBITRATIONS

PLEASE READ THIS SECTION CAREFULLY. FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW IF YOU WISH TO OPT OUT OF THE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOU TO RESOLVE DISPUTES THROUGH INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION.

Exclusive Venue for Other Controversies. GoDaddy and you agree that any controversy excluded from the dispute resolution procedure and class action waiver provisions in this Section (other than an individual action filed in small claims court) shall be filed only in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, or the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and each party hereby irrevocably and unconditionally consents and submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts for any such controversy. You also agree to waive the right to trial by jury in any such action or proceeding.

 

[TheBaldOne]

So, what happens if hypothetically a judgement comes through but in the interim, registrant details have changed? Doesn't that complicate the issue? Will the new registrant who rightfully paid for a domain be forced to bear the brunt of a preceding case?

Yes it would complicate the issue, but as there is no 'theft' of the domain then the party seeks damages from the respondent as per normal. This would not have any bearing on the domain name itself.

In any case 'if' something occurred in the interim the auctioneer would simply withdraw the name from auction IF such a court order required such, i.e. if the seizure of the respondents property was ordered. However if the domain name had been sold it would not form part of the respondents property - but the respondents bank balance would.

If the domain name had been stolen on the other hand then (as I think happens presently with reputable registrars) the domain would be locked (see my post above). If though sometimes happens that the domain is repeatedly moved then of course tracking can be difficult and reclaiming ownership complicated and time consuming (see the case of 'sex.com' {if my memory serves me correctly}).

@Paul Nicks and GoDaddy do need to answer the question I posed earlier though, would this proposed '30 day lock' be a singular non-recurring practice or would it just be a practice open to abuse with repeated '30 day locks' occurring at the whim of GoDaddy? If it is a practice that the registrar could repeat ad infinitum then it would be no better in preventing a similar case as has occurred with Create.com over the past year.

 

[boker]

Looking at their TOS: (although I think this is not for the cases where the two parties in a dispute are from different countries).

22. DISPUTES, BINDING INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION AND WAIVER OF CLASS ACTIONS AND CLASS ARBITRATIONS

PLEASE READ THIS SECTION CAREFULLY. FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW IF YOU WISH TO OPT OUT OF THE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOU TO RESOLVE DISPUTES THROUGH INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION.

Exclusive Venue for Other Controversies. GoDaddy and you agree that any controversy excluded from the dispute resolution procedure and class action waiver provisions in this Section (other than an individual action filed in small claims court) shall be filed only in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, or the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and each party hereby irrevocably and unconditionally consents and submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts for any such controversy. You also agree to waive the right to trial by jury in any such action or proceeding.

That's the risk of extending a company in other countries. Even if the main company is located in a certain country, as long as you have a presence in a country, you must obey the rules in that particular country, a judge can seize assets, force payment and other things as long as you have presence in that country. This is something normal, it's the same everywhere, you can't operate in a certain country, without obeying to the local rules. Usually, the big players open a distinct company, sister company, with the same owners, but different entity, so that they can play by different rules with each companies. In regards of godaddy, being a public company, I can't be sure how it works, but probably they could find ways to deal with this.

 

[FolioTeam]

Looking at their TOS: (although I think this is not for the cases where the two parties in a dispute are from different countries).

22. DISPUTES, BINDING INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION AND WAIVER OF CLASS ACTIONS AND CLASS ARBITRATIONS

PLEASE READ THIS SECTION CAREFULLY. FOLLOW THE INSTRUCTIONS BELOW IF YOU WISH TO OPT OUT OF THE PROVISIONS REQUIRING YOU TO RESOLVE DISPUTES THROUGH INDIVIDUAL ARBITRATION.

Exclusive Venue for Other Controversies. GoDaddy and you agree that any controversy excluded from the dispute resolution procedure and class action waiver provisions in this Section (other than an individual action filed in small claims court) shall be filed only in the Superior Court of Maricopa County, Arizona, or the United States District Court for the District of Arizona, and each party hereby irrevocably and unconditionally consents and submits to the exclusive jurisdiction of such courts for any such controversy. You also agree to waive the right to trial by jury in any such action or proceeding.

Yes, I read it on their website and to the best of my understanding, it covers mostly a scenario of complainant vs GoDaddy.

Besides, this is just a TOS which is still subject to the laws of the country or countries of operation. There's a reason why some countries are more favorable than others when it comes to running a business

 

[boker]

For example, godaddy owns in Europe 10 or more companies, but most of them are using different names and have different entity and they obey to the local laws, probably excluding godaddy uk, who is using the main entity. It's the same thing with India, for multiple reasons, godaddy wanted to use their own name and the main entity to enter the market, I could suspect reasons like: a big business turnaround, they can play with profit and costs( expecting a big revenue there) and others, so they had reasons to decide in one way or another.

 

[Sutruk]

That's the risk of extending a company in other countries. Even if the main company is located in a certain country, as long as you have a presence in a country, you must obey the rules in that particular country, a judge can seize assets, force payment and other things as long as you have presence in that country. This is something normal, it's the same everywhere, you can't operate in a certain country, without obeying to the local rules. Usually, the big players open a distinct company, sister company, with the same owners, but different entity, so that they can play by different rules with each companies. In regards of godaddy, being a public company, I can't be sure how it works, but probably they could find ways to deal with this.

Yes, but what if the asset is not located in that country? Godaddy can have presence in many countries, but not all their customers (domains) are located on each and every country.

So a court order from another country should be backed at least by a court order from the country of the domain registrant, if Godaddy also has legal presence there. If not, from the US main office county.
The domain registrant is paying for the asset and Godaddy must, or should protect his or her domains, and at least listening to a court order from their client's country too.

 

[Alop]

Yes, but what if the asset is not located in that country? Godaddy can have presence in many countries, but not all their coustomers (domains) are located on each and every country.

So a court order from another country should be backed at least by a court order from the country of the domain registrant, if Godaddy also has legal presence there. If not, from the US main office county.
The domain registrant is paying for the asset and Godaddy must, or should protect his or her domains, at least listening to a court order from their country too.

Once again you “think” or it “should”... I got MANY “laws” that I wish to implement myself. SIGN ME UP

 

[boker]

Yes, but domains are different assets than the standard assets. For example, if you register a domain through godaddy India, if it has different entity, obeying to local rules, it could be considered asset of godaddy India, not Godaddy US. Also, the revenue made from godaddy India could be seized by local government if there will be any issues regarding not obeying laws. It's more complicated than usual. For example, facebook revenue from Europe can be seized or they can force payments for a particular reason, but they can't touch revenue from Facebook US or India. It's the same for every company, they must obey to certain rules, if they choose to make business in a particular country.

 

[boker]

Regarding this case, probably godaddy US wanted to cover their back, if they will have a judgement agains them in India, because a court order can't seize anything from godaddy US, but can seize everything from grodaddy India, so godaddy tried to not play nice and cover judgement from India with assets from US, just because they can....the missing court order it just add spice to everything.

 

[FolioTeam]

Yes, but what if the asset is not located in that country? Godaddy can have presence in many countries, but not all their customers (domains) are located on each and every country.

So a court order from another country should be backed at least by a court order from the country of the domain registrant, if Godaddy also has legal presence there. If not, from the US main office county.
The domain registrant is paying for the asset and Godaddy must, or should protect his or her domains, and at least listening to a court order from their client's country too.

So, you are basically saying that if a complainant is from Australia and the registrant is from Argentina, he should not only get a court order from Australia, he should also get a supporting court order from Argentina before GoDaddy can take action.

Note that GoDaddy has a business presence in both Argentina and Australia and is subject to the laws of both countries.

 

[Sutruk]

For example, if you register a domain through godaddy India, if it has different entity, obeying to local rules, it could be considered asset of godaddy India, not Godaddy US.

You made a key point there. When you register a domain, it is purchased through one of Godaddy's international legal presences.
So I am pretty sure that in the case of Brent domains, he purchased his domains using Godaddy US, and not Godaddy India. Then it should have been clear where his domains belong. They were US domains, not Indian domains, so Godaddy should just have listened to a US court order or claim, not an indian one.

 

[oldtimer]

International laws are intricate. Only a lawyer can really tell us how it works. What happens when both parties are from outside the US or the complainant is from the US and the registrant from India?

We need to consider the fact that Godaddy has a legal department consisting of a team of lawyers who are (at least some of them) definitely very familiar with all the applicable International and local laws.

Godaddy is not the only company in the World that caters to people from different legal jurisdictions who might get entangled with one another including with Godaddy itself as we have seen being discussed in this thread.

It's not that we in this forum have to reinvent the wheel for all these companies who might have Global presence. The laws governing over International and Internet Commerce are already very clear and well established, but because the situation with domain names is kind of unique it fall under the authority of ICANN to enforce certain Rules and Policies for the domain Industry while still respecting the role of all the applicable legal jurisdictions for the different countries that act as stakeholders.

What we need to do is to hold ICANN responsible for making sure that everyone in the domain Industry conforms to the same Standards and Policies when it comes to protecting the Registrant Rights.

In reality there should only be one Universal TOS for all Registrars and Registries that clearly defines everyone's Rights and Responsibilities and the applicable legal jurisdictions that can be used in any given scenario depending on the physical location of the different parties involved so that we don't have to start from scratch and make such long threads every time that there is a dispute somewhere.

It's time that we forced ICANN to establish a Universal TOS (and or a Bill of Rights) that can help protect our Rights by bringing Transparency and Accountability to the domain Industry.

IMO

 

[Sutruk]

So, you are basically saying that if a complainant is from Australia and the registrant is from Argentina, he should not only get a court order from Australia, he should also get a supporting court order from Argentina before GoDaddy can take action.

Note that GoDaddy has a business presence in both Argentina and Australia and is subject to the laws of both countries.

If the domain was purchased through Godaddy Argentina, then Godaddy should only listen to a court order from Argentina, that is where his customer is from and where the domain has been purchased.
Godaddy should protect its customers from foreing unfounded claims.
If the claim is founded related for example to an obvious domain theft, then that's another story.
In my opinion.

 

[boker]

You made a key point there. When you register a domain, it is purchased through one of Godaddy's international legal presences.
So I am pretty sure that in the case of Brent domains, he purchased his domains using Godaddy US, and not Godaddy India. Then it should have been clear where his domains belong. They were US domains, not Indian domains, so Godaddy should just have listened to a US court order or claim, not an indian one.

Yes, but probably the thinking behind everything was that if there will be a seize regarding godaddy India properties, they will cover their back by seizing property of godaddy US, in this case Brent's domains and because they were sister companies, they managed to do this, not sure how legal it is.

 

[bmugford]

So, you are basically saying that if a complainant is from Australia and the registrant is from Argentina, he should not only get a court order from Australia, he should also get a supporting court order from Argentina before GoDaddy can take action.

Note that GoDaddy has a business presence in both Argentina and Australia and is subject to the laws of both countries.

The assets in this case are owned by Brent, not GoDaddy. He is based in the US. His assets are based in the US. Any judgement against him would need to be enforced via a US court which has jurisdiction over him and/or his assets.

An Indian court has no jurisdiction or authority over a US citizen who has no citizenship, residency, or assets located there.

An alternative option is you can file a lawsuit vs property, which is an In Rem lawsuit. When it comes to .COM that lawsuit would need to be where the .COM registry is located (Eastern District of Virginia). This is for instance how you could target a stolen domain or go after a domain where the owner is not clear.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

Let's take the domain out of the equation. I can assure you no financial institution would ever lock or seize assets in relation to this type of dispute.

I guarantee any bank would tell the other party to pound sand without a valid court order from that country, in a court with jurisdiction over the assets.

It would really open the floodgates if you could just file a lawsuit, or even get a court order in some random country and try to enforce it on someone else with no ties to that country. Much of the world has far less sophisticated legal systems than the countries involved here.

The important part is a judgement needs to be in a jurisdiction that has authority over you or your assets to be enforceable.

Brad

 

[FolioTeam]

Let's take the domain out of the equation. I can assure you no financial institution would ever lock or seize assets in relation to this type of dispute.

I guarantee any bank would tell the other party to pound sand without a valid court order from that country, in a court with jurisdiction over the assets.

Brad

True. But there's is the peculiarity and fluidity of digital assets to be considered which doesn't apply to other asset classes.

 

[bmugford]

We need to consider the fact that Godaddy has a legal department consisting of a team of lawyers who are (at least some of them) definitely very familiar with all the applicable International and local laws.

You would think that, but someone in that department referred to a "court order" that simply did not exist in this case. That was a major mistake by people in that department that either started, or was a major part of this debacle.

Brad

 

[oldtimer]

You would think that, but someone in that department referred to a "court order" that simply did not exist in this case. That was a major mistake by people in that department that either started, or was a major part of this debacle.

Brad

I doubt that it was a mistake,

Mistakes like that don't happen by large companies that have a whole legal department.

In my opinion this was in part a calculated action by Godaddy to possibly take control of some valuable domain names while punishing a person with opposing views and agendas than what the CEO of Godaddy might be holding for the company.

Although none of the parties involved in this case might have been completely innocent, but whatever remedies there are that can be used to settle their dispute should not be at the discretion of just one company.

We need to push for a Universal TOS and or a Bill of Rights through ICANN so that we won't be at the mercy of each individual company in the domain Industry.

IMO

 

[carob]

Interesting questions here about just where a domain and its owner are located.

When you register a domain with Godaddy, is your contract with them, or their local presence in your country if there is one?

If a domain has whois privacy, to know where the registrant is located, a complainant has to approach the registrar to get behind the privacy.

And a registrant can readily change their address or even country in the whois, or move after registering a doomain. What really determines their location?

 

[boker]

The assets in this case are owned by Brent, not GoDaddy. He is based in the US. His assets are based in the US. Any judgement against him would need to be enforced via a US court which has jurisdiction over him and/or his assets.

An Indian court has no jurisdiction or authority over a US citizen who has no citizenship, residency, or assets located there.

An alternative option is you can file a lawsuit vs property, which is an In Rem lawsuit. When it comes to .COM that lawsuit would need to be where the .COM registry is located (Eastern District of Virginia). This is for instance how you could target a stolen domain or go after a domain where the owner is not clear.

Brad

There are particular situations where they indian court can have jurisdiction, again, what I know is from other examples. For example, if Brent has a debt to Puneet in amount of let's say 100k, and Puneet manage to get a final judgement, if Brent is travelling to India, they could stop him and enforce the debt, seizing everything he has on him, as in cards, cars, jewelry and other assets, based on that court order, so it doesn;t have to go through an US court. Also, if he has a court order and he has assets at Godaddy India for example( Godaddy US can move some assets, revenue, properties, bonds or everything else to godaddy India, without you, as an user to know exactly who owns them, you just know that you have bought it in US, but it's possible to do it through other sister company) or assets in some offshore places where India has an agreement with, than they can enforce the court order, without going through US courts. There are thousands of particular cases, but in Brent's case, there was no court order and there was no reason for godaddy to get involved, it is just a simple commercial case.