Dynadot

discuss Defend HeidiPowell.com against a Bullying Celebrity Thief!

NameSilo
Watch
Hi domainers,

Please take a moment to help defend domain owner rights. The grandmother who owns HeidiPowell.com needs our help. You don't need to spend a penny. Just stand up and say, "This is unacceptable." It will take public pressure outside NamePros. But there are a lot of us; so hopefully we can join forces and spread the word.

Scroll down. There are a few specific things we can do to help. It's urgent.

Some of you know the story already. A grandmother has owned HeidiPowell.com for many years, but a minor TV celebrity has decided that she is the only Heidi Powell in the world who matters. And this arrogant celeb has dragged the original Mrs. Powell through a UDRP and even into bankruptcy court, attempting to take not just her domain but her own NAME from her by force. Truly, it's one of the most reprehensible cases I've ever come across. If we don't defend her, nobody will defend us when we ourselves are targeted.

Background:

Mrs. Powell has been Heidi Powell since her marriage in 1979. Back in 2005, 12 years ago, her husband presented her with the domain HeidiPowell.com as an anniversary gift. It's a developed website where she offers web design services. But it's more than just a site whose name can be changed. To this day, Heidi uses HeidiPowell.com for her email address, which is tied to all her online accounts. So if she loses this domain, it's akin to identity theft.

Then along comes another Heidi Powell – a celebrity fitness trainer who had a short-lived TV show on ABC. ("Celebrity", so they say. I'd never heard of her.) She became Heidi Powell after a 2010 marriage – long after HeidiPowell.com was registered by the rightful owners, Mr. and Mrs. Powell.

Greed and megalomania – it's the usual tale of a spoiled narcissistic brat who feels entitled to confiscate whatever she wants, no matter the damage to us "little people". First came the UDRP. Fortunately, David Weslow – a well respected attorney – stepped forward to defend Heidi pro bono (i.e. free of charge). I think there's a very good chance justice will prevail in the UDRP case, thanks to his efforts.

But Mrs. Powell and her husband are still suffering, and her domain remains in jeopardy. You see, this fitness trainer "star", this usurper, this would-be thief and her lawyers have found another way to attack the rightful Heidi Powell – even while the UDRP case is still in progress. Years ago, Mrs. Powell and her husband experienced some misfortunes and had to file for bankruptcy. Life can be like that. Now, this covetous celeb is arguing that the domain HeidiPowell.com ought to have been declared as a valuable asset during their bankruptcy case years ago. It's absurd, of course. The market value of HeidiPowell.com is negligible except for 1 greedy celebrity who came along later on. I personally prepared a 5-10 page document for David Weslow, citing verifiable data that proves this.

However, the celeb and her lawyers are bribing the trustee with a 5-figure sum to drag Mr. and Mrs. Powell back into bankruptcy court! And legal representation in this bankruptcy case is not provided by David Weslow; he's only handling the UDRP. Far from being free, this additional legal burden will cost Mr. and Mrs. Powell thousands – not to mention stress, time, and damage to their credit and reputation. Obviously, the celeb's strategy is to bleed this humble couple until they give up from exhaustion.

Press Coverage:

From time to time, we hear about domainers requesting financial help. Personally, I'm always very skeptical about those claims because it's easy to exploit people's sympathies. Heidi Powell is not a domainer. What she primarily needs our help with is public pressure. Giving that kind of help is 100% free.

Heidi's case has been written about extensively:

(1) USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...andmother-heidi-powell-over-website/90916602/

(2) The Register

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/27/narcissist_heidi_powell_wants_her_dotcom/

(3) DomainNameWire.com

http://domainnamewire.com/2016/09/13/reverse-domain-name-hijacking-alleged-heidipowell-com-lawsuit/

and

http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/19/heidi-powell-lawsuit/

(4) At NamesCon, David Weslow of Wiley Rein was given the first ever "Lonnie Borck Memorial Award" in recognition of his "exceptional efforts in championing the rights of domain name registrants". Those of us who are members of the ICA – the Internet Commerce Association, which advocates tirelessly for domain owner rights – voted for Mr. Weslow specifically because of this Heidi Powell case.

http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2016/dailyposts/20161219.htm

I was hoping that Heidi's case would get some publicity at NamesCon when David Weslow received the award. However, I understand he wasn't able to attend due to illness.

TAKE ACTION!

Alright, guys. This is where we can make a difference. Get angry! Imagine it's your grandma being dragged into bankruptcy court! Imagine it's your domain being taken away unjustly! Imagine it's costing you thousands and thousands to defend yourself against an arrogant narcissist with deep pockets!

What we can do:

(1) Visit HeidiPowell.com. There's a button on grandma's site, allowing you to tweet directly at this thieving celebrity. Tell her what you think of her. Please no threats. Please no profanity. Remember, we want domain owner rights to be respected and honored. Making threats or using profanity would only give people an excuse to dismiss us. Be professional. But be angry!

(2) Visit the celeb's website:

http://heidipowell.net/contact-me/

Tell her what you think. Again, be polite but firm.

(3) Grandma has a GoFundMe campaign:

https://www.gofundme.com/grandma-bullied-sued-for-her-name

Please leave a comment showing your support. I'm not asking anybody to contribute money. But if you can spare something small – even $1 – it might help show that Mrs. Powell is not alone ... that even total strangers are willing to back an underdog against a bully. If you don't want to donate, that's completely fine. Just leave a comment there. This thieving celeb needs to understand that her reputation is going to suffer if she persists in persecuting Mrs. Powell ... that she will be punching a cactus.

(4) Let's put pressure on ABC, since they created this monster. Maybe if they encounter some bad publicity themselves, they will in turn put pressure on the celebrity usurper to cease and desist:

https://twitter.com/ABCNetwork

Tell ABC what you think. Tell them they ought to be ashamed of themselves for letting Heidi Powell bully a grandmother and steal her property. Be sure to reference Heidi Powell specifically; otherwise ABC won't have a clue what we're talking about.

(5) We all have domainer acquaintances. Please send 3 people a link to this NamePros thread. There's strength in numbers.

(6) Once you've helped out, brag about it! Let other domainers here know that you give a damn. Post a reply in this thread so we can keep it visible. Positive peer pressure, folks! Let's show the world that domainers aren't parasitic cybersquatters. We stand up for property rights.
 
Last edited:
75
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
I stopped by to thank you all personally for your tremendous support. Thank you so much for standing beside us. It means more than I can ever say. If you ever need me to support your community, call and I will be there. Good news, the Arizona court has dismissed the case. Unfortunately we are still having to fight to keep my name in the bankruptcy court. There is a video update of what has transpired, as of Thursday, on my website https://www.heidipowell.com/ Blessing to all of you ~ Heidi
 
5
•••
Good news, the Arizona court has dismissed the case.

That's an interesting way to look at the ruling, since the fitness trainer has been trying to get the court to dismiss the case for a while now.

While, yes, the court dismissed the case, your position was in opposition to the fitness trainer's attempt to have it dismissed months ago. To be clear, the court denied your opposition to dismissal of the case:

The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Against Defendants because the parties agreed to mutually dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice and none of Defendants’ defenses to enforcement apply.

The dismissal is a ruling against you, not for you.

On the remaining bits and pieces..

The Court, however, denies the Motion with respect to attorneys’ fees because granting attorneys’ fees would cause extreme hardship to the Defendants.

So, you dodged the bullet on that one. On the remaining bits and pieces, the parties had elevated a difference of opinion to cross motions for sanctions....

The Court denies both Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Sanctions because Plaintiff and Defendants had legally and factually tenable justifications for their filings. Because the Court will enforce the parties’ agreement to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, the Court denies as moot all other pending motions.

...
which also means that the counterclaim for $100k is likewise dismissed.
 
3
•••
Okay, so, I took a look-see a the recent flurry of filings in Washington, and here is the state of play:

The fitness trainer had originally offered $10k to the bankruptcy trustee. As I noted above, it is the responsibility of the trustee to collect what he can on behalf of the creditors. The creditors, in this instance, are US taxpayers, since the underlying debt was to the US Dept. of Education.

After an initial round of filings in the re-opened case, the trustee was inclined to sell it back to Granny Powell for the same $10k, subject to an exemption of $7k or thereabouts, and also noting that the status of domain names as property in bankruptcy is unclear.

So... the fitness trainer has upped her offer to $20k, and provided the trustee with a brief to the effect that domain names should be considered property in bankruptcy in the State of Washington.

There are some problems with that brief, which I may go into when I have more time, but I'd like to point out what matters here.

For years, there has been this cult-like insistence that it would be somehow "good" for domainers if domain names were considered to be "property" instead of incidents to service contracts with registrars. One of the reasons for this insistence goes back to the Kremen v. Cohen case, in which a highjacked domain name was recovered on a conversion claim (the civil form of theft). The reason it was important in that case was because the uncreative lawyers who filed it, framed it AS a conversion claim, instead of any of a number of other legal claims that might have been used to recover the domain name. But because the domain name at issue was sex.com, domainers latched onto "domain names should be property" as an almost magic incantation that would universally benefit them.

Also, for years, I've pointed out that this insistence was going to bite someone in the ass someday, and now it has. Because if you want domain names to be property, then they are subject to assignment in divorce, various liens, bankruptcy, and property tax. If you are "buying" them from registrars, then you are also rooting for the payment of sales tax. Why domainers want those things, I have no idea. Personally, I don't have an opinion either way. But what I do not like, in any event, are shallow arguments - even if I agree with the conclusion.

Now, the "is it property" question seems to have been admitted thus far. Rather than take the clear position that it was not property subject to bankruptcy, the debtor's counsel filed a brief to the effect that "yes, it's property, but wasn't worth much" as discussed above. Well, regardless of what anyone thought it was worth, the trustee has an offer to sell it for $20,000.

So what this appears headed toward is a bidding war between whatever the fitness trainer is willing to offer, and whatever Grandma Powell is able to raise by donations.

But I want to be really clear about one point here - if you are in the "domain names should be property camp" then you are rooting for the fitness trainer's position to prevail in this thing.

All that said, the thread title here refers to a "thief". Thieves generally don't offer to pay for things.
 
Last edited:
7
•••
I stopped by to thank you all personally for your tremendous support. Thank you so much for standing beside us. It means more than I can ever say. If you ever need me to support your community, call and I will be there. Good news, the Arizona court has dismissed the case. Unfortunately we are still having to fight to keep my name in the bankruptcy court. There is a video update of what has transpired, as of Thursday, on my website https://www.heidipowell.com/ Blessing to all of you ~ Heidi
Best of luck!
 
1
•••
@jberryhill @Gaptooth

I will note one thing:

GoDaddy’s registration agreement requires customers to “acknowledge and agree that by registering a domain name, you are not acquiring any property rights in that domain name.”
 
1
•••
GoDaddy's registration agreement requires customers to “acknowledge and agree that by registering a domain name, you are not acquiring any property rights in that domain name.”

Maybe I missed it, but I don't see that in the document you linked to? Can you clarify where you see that?
 
0
•••
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see that in the document you linked to? Can you clarify where you see that?
Stepped out of my office. Will do once i get back. :)
 
0
•••
Okay, so, I took a look-see a the recent flurry of filings in Washington, and here is the state of play:

The fitness trainer had originally offered $10k to the bankruptcy trustee. As I noted above, it is the responsibility of the trustee to collect what he can on behalf of the creditors. The creditors, in this instance, are US taxpayers, since the underlying debt was to the US Dept. of Education.

After an initial round of filings in the re-opened case, the trustee was inclined to sell it back to Granny Powell for the same $10k, subject to an exemption of $7k or thereabouts, and also noting that the status of domain names as property in bankruptcy is unclear.

So... the fitness trainer has upped her offer to $20k, and provided the trustee with a brief to the effect that domain names should be considered property in bankruptcy in the State of Washington.

There are some problems with that brief, which I may go into when I have more time, but I'd like to point out what matters here.

For years, there has been this cult-like insistence that it would be somehow "good" for domainers if domain names were considered to be "property" instead of incidents to service contracts with registrars. One of the reasons for this insistence goes back to the Kremen v. Cohen case, in which a highjacked domain name was recovered on a conversion claim (the civil form of theft). The reason it was important in that case was because the uncreative lawyers who filed it, framed it AS a conversion claim, instead of any of a number of other legal claims that might have been used to recover the domain name. But because the domain name at issue was sex.com, domainers latched onto "domain names should be property" as an almost magic incantation that would universally benefit them.

Also, for years, I've pointed out that this insistence was going to bite someone in the ass someday, and now it has. Because if you want domain names to be property, then they are subject to assignment in divorce, various liens, bankruptcy, and property tax. If you are "buying" them from registrars, then you are also rooting for the payment of sales tax. Why domainers want those things, I have no idea. Personally, I don't have an opinion either way. But what I do not like, in any event, are shallow arguments - even if I agree with the conclusion.

Now, the "is it property" question seems to have been admitted thus far. Rather than take the clear position that it was not property subject to bankruptcy, the debtor's counsel filed a brief to the effect that "yes, it's property, but wasn't worth much" as discussed above. Well, regardless of what anyone thought it was worth, the trustee has an offer to sell it for $20,000.

So what this appears headed toward is a bidding war between whatever the fitness trainer is willing to offer, and whatever Grandma Powell is able to raise by donations.

But I want to be really clear about one point here - if you are in the "domain names should be property camp" then you are rooting for the fitness trainer's position to prevail in this thing.

All that said, the thread title here refers to a "thief". Thieves generally don't offer to pay for things.
I don't know much about law. If the domain wasn't claimed as an asset at the beginning of the bankruptcy, can it be added after the fact? Is the trustee in a position to determine whether or not a domain is an asset?

If I file for bankruptcy and have 500 domains, who determines the value? If someone comes along and offers $100 to the trustee for all my domains is that the value?!

Anyhow, how is it possible for granny to pay the trustee for the domain? Isn't her extra money supposed to go to creditors? So in reality if she has an extra $10k to match the fitness thief shouldn't that $10k just be taken...
 
0
•••
Maybe I missed it, but I don't see that in the document you linked to? Can you clarify where you see that?

It can't be that link because the word property is only mentioned twice in the entire document.
 
0
•••
It can't be that link because the word property is only mentioned twice in the entire document.

Yeah, I did a text search as well and didn't see anything. So I'm not sure where @Silentptnr saw that?
 
0
•••
Still in car. I imagine if you start to reg a name at gd you have to click the box accepting tos. The tos link should spell it out.
 
0
•••
Still in car. I imagine if you start to reg a name at gd you have to click the box accepting tos. The tos link should spell it out.
Don't think it matters. GoDaddy can interpret what a domain name is but that doesn't make it true.

I feel like domains are property. The real question is how to determine worth? Surely it's not determined by offers or there are a ton of LLL worth $xxx.
 
0
•••
Don't think it matters. GoDaddy can interpret what a domain name is but that doesn't make it true.

I feel like domains are property. The real question is how to determine worth? Surely it's not determined by offers or there are a ton of LLL worth $xxx.

I dont think what we feel like matters. There is no question that a registrant has a conditional "lease".
 
1
•••
Okay, I'm back... Here ya go:

https://www.godaddy.com/legal-agreements.aspx

Or you can go to Google and type:
godaddy acknowledge and agree that by registering a domain name, you are not acquiring any property rights in that domain name
 
0
•••
@todaygold @equity78 @jberryhill @Gaptooth

From Domain Registration TOS:
Ownership. You acknowledge and agree that registration of a domain name does not create any proprietary right for you, the registrar, or any other person in the name used as a domain name or the domain name registration and that the entry of a domain name in the Registry shall not be construed as evidence or ownership of the domain name registered as a domain name. You shall not in any way transfer or purport to transfer a proprietary right in any domain name registration or grant or purport to grant as security or in any other manner encumber or purport to encumber a domain name registration.
 
Last edited:
0
•••
@todaygold @equity78 @jberryhill @Gaptooth

From Domain Registration TOS:
Ownership. You acknowledge and agree that registration of a domain name does not create any proprietary right for you, the registrar, or any other person in the name used as a domain name or the domain name registration and that the entry of a domain name in the Registry shall not be construed as evidence or ownership of the domain name registered as a domain name. You shall not in any way transfer or purport to transfer a proprietary right in any domain name registration or grant or purport to grant as security or in any other manner encumber or purport to encumber a domain name registration.

Interesting. So if I'm reading it right, they basically say you have no 'right of ownership' and that you are essentially only leasing the domain name.
 
0
•••
Interesting. So if I'm reading it right, they basically say you have no 'right of ownership' and that you are essentially only leasing the domain name.
Clearly. Not only that, NameCheap is even more aggressive in their TOS than GD.
 
0
•••
Almost like renting an apartment or house. You have pretty much free and complete control but you are not the "owner". You have an open-ended lease. You have to pay. Stop paying, lease ends...abruptly.
 
0
•••
Clearly. Not only that, NameCheap is even more aggressive in their TOS than GD.
Can you sell anything leased...cars, homes, heavy equipment? No!

Domains are extremely unique. They are owned property. The only thing in question is how to value the property?
 
0
•••
Can you sell anything leased...cars, homes, heavy equipment? No!

Domains are extremely unique. They are owned property. The only thing in question is how to value the property?
Actually, in many cases you can sell leased things. The new owner assumes the existing terms of your lease.
 
0
•••
Actually, in many cases you can sell leased things. The new owner assumes the existing terms of your lease.
You can't lease a car and sell it. Same with a house. Maybe you can transfer payments but you can't sell a leased object at market value.
 
0
•••
As to the value, it's pretty simple. Value and demand go hand in hand. If there is no demand, there is no value. Higher demand means higher value. The open market typically determines the "value".
 
1
•••
You can't lease a car and sell it. Same with a house. Maybe you can transfer payments but you can't sell a leased object at market value.
It all depends on the terms of each of those. Those things are negotiable prior to consummation.
 
0
•••
I can't sell my ice cream though. :)
 
0
•••
As to the value, it's pretty simple. Value and demand go hand in hand. If there is no demand, there is no value. Higher demand means higher value. The open market typically determines the "value".
By that logic you can't hold a domain and ask your price. It's value is based on a publicly held sale like an auction. And what constitutes demand? Is demand 20 offers of $100 for a domain that you want $100,000 for?
 
0
•••
Back