IT.COM

information VPN.com LLC has filed a multimillion lawsuit

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

Lox

____Top Member
Impact
12,399
VPN.com LLC has filed a multimillion lawsuit against long time domain investor George Dikian (California), Qiang Du (Hong Kong) and John Doe at the US District Court (California).

The lawsuit involves a $250,000 payment in Bitcoin and $6.625 million in owed commissions on multiple transactions involving 96 premium 2N.com and 3N.com domains.

read more
 
26
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
I don't know where I read that RHWDomains(@)gmail.com is Qiang Du's email address; maybe I'm mistaken? The only google result for that email address is from PacerMonitor citing this case.

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63559525/22/vpncom-llc-v-george-dikian/
1671006742365.png




1671013788046.png

If Qiang Du is a common name, how would a default judgement against Du go? Would it be a default judgement against the email address [email protected]?

Basically wondering how a default judgement would know the difference between a Qiang Du who is 18 years old, VS a Qiang Du who is 80 years old Vs John Doe who is X years old?



I still can't find any historical hits for [email protected]. Wondering if it's a long time use email, or if it was just a throwaway gmail address?

It looks like [email protected] may have submitted a google acct deletion request.

1671007388738.png


That doesn't mean [email protected] was never registered:

1671007437460.png


Dikian denies ever having registered or used the “[email protected]” email address

Similarly it looks like the [email protected] email address may also have been deleted.

1671007623139.png


1671007652435.png


...

A working gmail account would return a result such as:

1671007700550.png


...

A not working, never been registered gmail address would look like:

1671007871632.png


+

1671007904613.png
 
Last edited:
10
•••
I still can't find any historical hits for [email protected]. Wondering if it's a long time use email, or if it was just a throwaway gmail address?
if an email is not in the haveibeenpawned db it probably hasn't been used much. Use that site to search those email and also note when you see a . in a gmail address, try searching it without the . too. Gmail lets you add . as much as you want.
 
4
•••
Ok, after a sleepless night avoiding a math final, and sleuthing here instead, it appears with the communities help, we may have discovered the identity of George Dikian. If not the identity, I discovered previous litigation against somebody with a lot of internet connections to George Dikian, with believed at least one domain arbitration instance leading a default judgement previously ruled against this domainer. Possibly even their name used in earlier years, unless that too is/was another alias. Some wild stuff!

Seeing how I'm low on sleep, and not thinking straight, I'm not sure what the benefits/purpose of exposing the Dikian alias. The sleuth journey is usually more entertaining than the destination.

TBH, I only really got invested enough to start sleuthing after reading Mr. Garigiulo douchey response to @jberryhill on the OnlineDomain.com article. and getting charged by such a douchey response being spat at sound advice.

1671021273393.png

..

Mr. Gargiulo was responding to @jberryhill comment below

1671021412335.png

...

Maybe it's douchey on my end to withhold information like a bridge troll. And perhaps Mr. Garigulo and his lawyers already discovered what appears to be the identity/further connections of George Dikian, assuming that's the point to hiring competent council. But in the event Mr. Garigulo needs some help determining more information on George Dikian, I will be happy to share some found connections if @VPN.com interacts in this thread, and apologizes to @jberryhill for his douchey comment.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Lol. No one needs to apologize to me. We all have our good days and bad days. Mr. Gargiulo is out quite a bit of money and is understandably upset.
 
0
•••
If Qiang Du is a common name, how would a default judgement against Du go?

Isn't that a great question. Maybe they all have to chip in.🤷‍♂️

The sleuth journey is usually more entertaining than the destination.

I, for one, have no idea who it is. It will probably come out eventually, but I agree that ruining the surprise is not sporting.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
Lol. No one needs to apologize to me. We all have our good days and bad days. Mr. Gargiulo is out quite a bit of money and is understandably upset.

That's a very stand-up response. Thanks for leading by example.

...

I'm too tired to go in detail with an attempt to connect circumstantial Dikian dots, but for anybody that's been following along, there may be some interesting bread crumbs in Yahoo! Inc. and GeoCities v. Eitan Zviely a/k/a comyahoo.com, et al.

https://www.adrforum.com/domaindecisions/162060.htm
With regard to the identity of Respondent, Complainant alleged the following in its complaint:

Although the Rules provide that a Complaint may relate to more than one domain name as long as the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder, in situations such as this one where it is clear that the same person is registering domain names using different fictitious names, it is appropriate to proceed in a single Complaint against multiple registrant names. See Adobe Systems Inc. v. Domain OZ (WIPO D2000-0057) (decision rendered against multiple respondents where respondents shared the same post office box number and email address in their registration information).

The listed registrants of the Domain Names are obviously fictitious, as many are a direct copy of the domain name itself or an invented facsimile thereof. For example, the registrant of the domain name <comyahoo.com> is comyahoo.com., the registrant of the domain name <yahohoo.com> is Yao Hoo Herski, the registrant of the domain name <yoahoo.com> is Yoa Hoo Nodski, and the registrant of the domain name <geoities.com> is Geo I Ties.

The same e-mail address, [email protected], is listed for the administrative contact for all of the Domain Names. That same e-mail address is listed for the technical contact for all of the Domain Names except for five registrations, which list instead a very similar e-mail address, [email protected]. The city of Gdynsk, Poland address is listed on all of the registrations of the Domain Names except one, which lists an Armenian address. The Gdynsk addresses have the street address of “Flopgyteri” listed on six (6) registrations and the street address of “Pzscek” listed on the remaining thirty-nine (39) registrations.

Further, all of the Domain Names are used to redirect Internet users to the same directly competing web directory website located at the domain name <megago.com> and to generate the same popup advertisements associated with the domain names <37.com> and <89.com>. Complainant attaches a declaration of an individual who accessed the Domain Names as Exhibit 2. In addition, the same server, ns.zf.net, is listed on the vast majority (41 of 46) of the Domain Names. (See Exhibit 1.)

The fact that the Domain Names are being used in connection with the domain name <37.com> and/or the server ns.zf.net proves that the person responsible for registering and using the Domain Names is Eitan Zviely, a notorious cybersquatter who is associated with the domain name <37.com> and the server ns.zf.net and whose activities have been the subject of numerous adverse UDRP decisions and at least two court orders. Attached as Exhibit 3 are March 2000 WHOIS printouts for the domain name <37.com> and the server ns.zf.net, which list one of Mr. Zviely’s aliases, Domain OZ, and Mr. Zviely’s address of P.O. Box 480167, Encino, CA, 90048. Mr. Zviely used that address and the same server in a previous case brought by Complainant, Yahoo! Inc. v Eitan Zviely a/k/a Names OZ, Zvieli Fisher, F.Z., OZ Domains, E.Z.O.F., E&O Domains, and Fisher Zvieli (WIPO D2000-0273). In that case, the UDRP Panel held that Yahoo! successfully proved that Eitan Zviely acted in bad faith by registering thirty-seven (37) YAHOO-formative domain names under numerous fictitious names and using those domain names to redirect Internet users to competing websites hosted on the ns.zf.net server, including the website located at the domain name <37.com>.

Mr. Zviely was also held to be the responsible party in Ty, Inc. v. O.Z. Names (WIPO D2000-0370). In that case as well, he used the disputed domain names to redirect Internet users to the <37.com> and <megago.com> websites.

Further connecting Mr. Zviely with the domain name <37.com> is Microsoft Corporation, et al v. Zvieli Fisher, et al (C.D. Cal. 1999). In that case, Plaintiff Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) sued regarding Zviely’s registration of 20 domain names comprised of misspellings of Microsoft’s marks MICROSOFT, WINDOWS, MSNBC, and HOTMAIL, and noted that Zviely had registered domain names comprised of numerous other misspelled trademarks owned by third parties, including the YAHOO! mark. Microsoft alleged that Zviely infringed Microsoft’s marks by re-directing Internet users to his websites <37.COM> and <800GO.COM>, and the court entered a Default Judgment against the defendants. Complainant attaches as Exhibits 6 and 7 a copy of the Complaint and a copy of the docket recording the series of Default Judgments entered against the defendants.

Further connecting Mr. Zviely with the Gdynsk, Poland address listed on the registrations of the Domain Names is the UDRP Decision, AltaVista Company v. O.F.E.Z., Fisher Zvieli, OZ Domains, EO Domains, Altavisto.com, Altavsita.com, Laltavista.com, and Altavistacom.com (WIPO D2000-1160). In that case, the domain names were registered to fictitious entities that were associated with false addresses in Encino, California and Gdynsk, Poland. A copy of that decision is attached as Exhibit 8.

Because the contact information for all of the Domain Names is nearly identical, because all of the Domain Names are being used to redirect Internet users to the same website and to the same popup advertisements, and because Eitan Zviely is indisputably connected with the registration and use of the Domain Names, Complainant has named Respondent as Eitan Zviely a/k/a comyahoo.com, a/k/a hyahoo.com, a/k/a yahoochinese.com, a/k/a yahooh.com, a/k/a yahoopager.com, a/k/a yaooh.com, a/k/a Yaha Public Rest Rooms, a/k/a eliyahoo.com, a/k/a gbchineseyahoo.com, a/k/a gbyahoo.com, a/k/a Geo Cit Ties, a/k/a geocitys.com, a/k/a Htt Pya Hoo, a/k/a lyahoo.com, a/k/a searchyahoo.com, a/k/a syahoo.com, a/k/a yahooespanol.com, a/k/a yaaoo.com, a/k/a Yaltzkin Hoocovichski, a/k/a yahooindex.com, a/k/a yahoomaps.com, a/k/a yahoosex.com, a/k/a yahoou.com, a/k/a Yao Hoo Herski, a/k/a yayhoo.com, a/k/a yayoo.com, a/k/a Yoa Hoo Nodski, a/k/a Yta Hoo Jung, a/k/a Geocii Ties, a/k/a Geoci Tiies Fgerschzki, a/k/a Geoci Toes, a/k/a Geo Co. Ties, a/k/a Geo I Ties, a/k/a Yah Goo Szvontzki, a/k/a Yah Oom Chong, a/k/a Ya Hoow Ong, a/k/a Yaho Po Ching, a/k/a Ya Qhoo Schtzeski, a/k/a Yho Oligaski, and a/k/a Young Armenian Heart Operations On Line.

The National Arbitration Forum and Complainant made numerous attempts to contact Respondent; however, none were successful. In addition, Respondent did not submit a formal response in this proceeding. Thus, the Panel is permitted to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences in the complaint as true. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that Respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of Complainant to be deemed true). A complete list of the disputed domain names, the creation date, the registrant, contact information, and server information were provided.

https://www.cnet.com/tech/services-and-software/microsoft-sues-over-misleading-domains/
Microsoft is using lawsuits to protect its Internet domain name; the company settled a similar suit in Texas earlier this year. The latest suit, which names as defendants Zvieli Fisher, M. Zvieli, Ed Fisher, 37.com, 800GO.com, and others, seeks unspecified damages and a court order preventing the defendants from continuing to infringe on Microsoft's and MSNBC's trademarks.

https://cent.ischool.syr.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/markle-report-final.pdf
1671043285578.png


...

1671043834646.png
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Reported the new website to NameCheap. Sent link to this thread and domainname wire article and they replied saying they need more proof. 🤦

I replied with screenshot of the original website from archive.org yesterday. Let’s wait and see if they will do anything.
How is the proceed now?
 
0
•••
This just in....

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.855964/gov.uscourts.cacd.855964.35.0.pdf

Screen Shot 2022-12-22 at 2.58.28 PM.png



Okay, so VPN, having alleged all manner of stuff against Qiang Du, whom VPN elsewhere has said was their client, has decided to drop Du from the suit.

One point worth noting is that if Du is an "indispensable party" to the action, as defined in FRCP Rule 19, then that might be a problem.

Du has defaulted, and the court requested the plaintiff to file for a default judgment against Du, but the plaintiff appears not to want to do that, lest Dikian blame Du for whatever transpired and claim that VPN is seeking a double recovery by going after Dikian.

Kind of a puzzler.
 
1
•••
5
•••
John Doe used a VPN and they can't locate him?

If John Doe used a VPN Service that really doesn't log the IP address of the users, then, sure he can't be located.
Besides, it's practically difficult to track every single request that flows via VPN servers.

VPN service providers in general filter out only high profile user visits (secretly), and most wanted criminals (as per police/court order).

For that matter, I strongly believe that the VPN servers are run by certain elites, 'in order to secretly monitor' their opponents - including political enemies, etc.
 
2
•••
It is kind of a strange business… Are you concerned about your privacy? Then why not trust some total strangers with all your internet traffic?

I can see some use cases. It’s irritating when I travel abroad that I can’t watch streaming services which I pay for, because of regional licensing issues.

But the pitch of “people can snoop on your internet traffic, so route it all through us” sounds like that friend who wants to hold your money to keep it safe from thieves.
 
7
•••
1
•••
Mr. Chris you rock the Casbah. Hot damn!

Apologies in advance if my post is off-off topic.

Shame is a heavy burden indeed.
 
1
•••
so many wtfs... like... how r u going to broker a deal and have one party agree to one price and the other party agree to another price... and then the broker keeps the excess wtf? isn't that illegal or something or..????

i mean, is that fair? If GD brokers email me and tell me a buyer wants to buy... and i agree to liek 1k but the buyer actually agreed to 4k.. will GD just charge the buyer 4k and pay me 700$?

also, tbh vpn had a 50% chance of getting screwed over even if it went with Epik or Escrow as per the article stating so.
 
1
•••
Looks like the court has rescheduled a mediation via zoom for June 30th, 2023 @ 8:00 AM PST.

⌛
 

Attachments

  • VPN v Dikian Mediation.pdf
    40.6 KB · Views: 38
Last edited:
1
•••
Looks like the court has rescheduled a mediation via zoom for June 30th, 2023 @ 8:00 AM PST.

Happening tomorrow, any idea how to get the zoom link?
 
0
•••
1
•••
A minor skirmish has erupted in Florida over a subpoena served on Bodis. A motion to quash the subpoena was filed in the US District Court for the Middle District of Florida, along with a motion to transfer it back to California.

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.888469/gov.uscourts.cacd.888469.1.0.pdf

Screenshot 2023-06-30 at 3.47.50 PM.png



The transfer motion was granted and the motion to quash remains to be decided:

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.888469/gov.uscourts.cacd.888469.8.0.pdf
 
5
•••
I didn't read it carefully, but why should anyone with so many premium domains try to scam people, while selling some of these domains would be very profitable already.
 
0
•••
4
•••
The Plaintiff has replied...

https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.cacd.855964/gov.uscourts.cacd.855964.51.0.pdf

Screenshot 2023-07-20 at 8.44.36 AM.png


If I had to bet on who would win this round, my money would be on the Plaintiff. I believe it is unlikely the Court will find the arguments compelling against identifying the person doing business under the name George Dikian.

On the overall facts, however, the argument that one should be held responsible for criminal acts committed in one's name because one allegedly was "negligent" in having their identity stolen, seems like a stretch.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
On the overall facts, however, the argument that one should be held responsible for criminal acts committed in one's name because one allegedly was "negligent" in having their identity stolen, seems like a stretch.

I agree. Seems similar to any other crimes committed using stolen property. For example, if someone steals my car and then commits a crime using said vehicle, am I responsible for crimes committed after the theft?
 
Last edited:
0
•••
For example, if someone steals my car and then commits a crime using said vehicle, am I responsible for crimes committed after the theft?

Two important concepts in negligence are...

1. Foreseeability - Is the harm flowing from the alleged negligence reasonably foreseeable in the ordinary course of events. Another formulation is whether the harm is one of the natural consequences you might expect from someone doing that sort thing. On one end of the scale you might have, "I lost my loaded gun near a high school." With the car, I might want to know whether you left it unlocked on the street with the keys in it. In both of those instances, you might expect someone to come along and take them. The gun, however, is inherently dangerous. While you might expect the car to be stolen, it's not quite as clear that the thief is going to run someone down with it. The gun, on the other hand, is the sort of thing that is pretty much made for doing harm.

2. Superseding Cause - In the chain of events from "he was negligent" to "I was harmed", is there some kind of intervening agency which is a greater proximate cause of my harm than the alleged negligence. I left my car on the street unlocked with the keys in it. Someone stole my car and drove away with it. They then picked up a hitchhiker. The hitchhiker got a ride to the home of his wife's lover and killed him. Now... there's a whole lot of independent agency between my leaving the car unlocked and some guy getting shot in a lover's triangle. He didn't get shot because I left my car unlocked. He was shot because of a chain of events having nothing to do with me.

With the gun scenario, on the other hand, the very reason why one must exercise appropriate care is to prevent precisely that sort of thing - someone getting ahold of it and shooting someone with it. While, yes, the person who picks up my gun left near the high school is an independent agency, it is reasonable to expect that someone with bad intentions will put that gun to its intended use - i.e. shooting someone. Cars, maybe not so much. Email accounts? You decide.

So, the questions are - leaving aside the question of "what is the ordinary level of care" one should exercise with their email account.

(1) Is it a naturally foreseeable consequence of failing to adequately protect your digital identity that someone else is going to be ripped off to the tune of $XXXXXX?

(2) Does the intentional criminal behavior of the hacker constitute a superseding cause which cuts off liability for Dikian, as being more of a proximate cause of the resulting alleged harm?
 
2
•••
1
•••
Obviously,this comment has the hindsight advantage, but that "sketchy escrow" company should have been a huge red flag. This is a small industry, not oblivious to appraisal scams, so why a broker would trust an unknown escrow company like Intermediar is beyond me. Maybe the thought of a multi million dollar commission clouded judgement. But c'mon man!

1689952606245.png
 
2
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back