discuss Defend HeidiPowell.com against a Bullying Celebrity Thief!

Slanted · Jan 31, 2017

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.

Silentptnr · Feb 25, 2017

I would only say that in "this" case, it is a good thing that the debtor did not report a domain name as personal property. It would have been incorrect based on the agreement she entered when she "registered" the domain.

We domain "registrants" are just that. There will never be a day when domains are "paid off". Certainly we can exercise all the rights of registration, but the TOS are very clear. Every domain registrant should read those and be familiar.

What we are "selling" in the domain world is "ownership of the registration", not the domain.

Silentptnr · Feb 25, 2017

Also, do know that not all registrars have this in their TOS. Mainly the big ones.

Keith · Feb 25, 2017

Silentptnr said:
It all depends on the terms of each of those. Those things are negotiable prior to consummation.

Exactly my point. This is about negotiations...sometimes. I've been told by several domain owners that the domain just isn't for sale. I can't imagine how a bankruptcy trustee can determine a domains value.

I hope the fitness trainer loses this. If I had deep pockets I'd just offer the trustee more so the fake Heidi couldn't afford to proceed.

Silentptnr · Feb 25, 2017

Keith said:
Exactly my point. This is about negotiations...sometimes. I've been told by several domain owners that the domain just isn't for sale. I can't imagine how a bankruptcy trustee can determine a domains value.

I hope the fitness trainer loses this. If I had deep pockets I'd just offer the trustee more so the fake Heidi couldn't afford to proceed.

I don't think it will be necessary. I can't see a judge going the legal path of calling into question the legal validity of the TOS. That would be huge...ya he me...huge!

Silentptnr · Feb 25, 2017

Certainly it will be the job of the defendants counsel to lay this all out clearly. I don't think the likes of GD could make the TOS more complex. You have multiple TOS tied together in a very complex web of rules, waivers, and legal mumbo jumbo.

We just like our domains.

What we own are registrations though. It might sound weird to say, "I own 500 registrations" instead of 500 domains, but that's the case at GD and others.

Silentptnr · Feb 25, 2017

There are even limitations on what we can do with the domains. Break those rules, and the registrar can cancel the registration.

Silentptnr · Feb 25, 2017

Fact is, what we buy and sell are domain registrations. Someone makes an offer to buy the registration. Not the actual name.

I'm not @jberryhill by any means, but I will say this. I definitely agree with his position with respect to ownership versus service rights. But the reason I agree is mainly because it's already spelled out in the TOS when we register a domain or pay to take over a registration.

Normally registration versus ownership is just symantics, but sometimes it can be a very important distinction.

Slanted · Feb 25, 2017

jberryhill said:
All that said, the thread title here refers to a "thief". Thieves generally don't offer to pay for things.

If I offer money to buy something that I'd enjoy having but to which I have no right, and the owner tells me it isn't for sale, then as a non-thief, I let the owner keep what's rightfully theirs.

If, instead of respecting the owner's decision not to sell, I find someone who can TAKE the item away from the owner by force against the owner's wishes, and I offer to PAY that person to TAKE that item and give it to me, then, yes, absolutely, I'm a thief.

Addison · Feb 25, 2017

Joseph Peterson says
February 24, 2017 at 7:29 pm

As far as the bankruptcy goes, isn’t that process meant to give someone a chance to make a clean break and start over? When someone goes bankrupt, presumably some bills will go unpaid. Life ought to be allowed to continue without perpetual debt. If the bankruptcy filing happened in 2012, then shouldn’t the matter have been laid to rest by now, five years later?

Grandma Powell survived the bankruptcy years ago, keeping her name as a .COM – an anniversary gift given her by her husband – just as she kept the socks in her sock drawer or her family photos. All personal items with negligible market value and of no legitimate interest for the bankruptcy court at the time.

Should the trustee compel her to give up whatever personal item someone else now covets? In that case, if I decide to offer money for Grandma’s wedding dress, then the trustee must seize it and give it to me.

Joseph Peterson says
February 24, 2017 at 9:06 pm

No reasonable person would have listed their own first-name-last-name domain name as an asset. At best, it was a personal expense – and a tiny one at that. Like lipstick or a framed photo. And if the domain HAD been included, the court would presumably have certified it as being of negligible value.

Superb points!

I was preparing a post that mirrored your convictions, but you did it justice.

(Emphasis added to emphasize the emphasized by emphasizing.)

john_karr · Feb 27, 2017

168 said:
There is no way they can prove value "at that time" today.
Contacting TMZ and other sites like it might help too.
Press release blitz!
I'm in.
Thanks for the update.
Cheers

Here is the Heidi Powell fan page. Let her fans know about the BS she's involved in. Hit her where it hurts the pocket.

https://www.facebook.com/realheidipowell/

https://www.facebook.com/Heidi-Powell-SUCKS-662594300589842/

john_karr · Feb 27, 2017

HeidiPowell.com Twitter

https://twitter.com/heidipowell

platey · Feb 28, 2017

The joys of domain names

platey · Feb 28, 2017

Cases like this will effectively destroy the domain name industry as if this domain changes ownership - no domain name is safe which would make domain name ownership pointless and or impossible and leave the domain name industry all at sea because if every domain name ownership is questioned potential buyers won't want to buy domain names because even if the seller owns the domain name the seller would only own the domain name and for that matter the buyer would only own the domain name until it was challenged

GlennD · Mar 1, 2017

jberryhill said:
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.

This is what allowed Kremen to sue the registrar. Otherwise, the registrar gets off scott free. Courts are all over the place on this. The legal system is a crap shoot, at best.

jberryhill · Mar 1, 2017

GlennD said:
This is what allowed Kremen to sue the registrar. Otherwise, the registrar gets off scott free.

No, that's simply not true, and you missed my entire point.

It was necessary to that case because the claim was framed as a conversion claim. There are several other ways that case could have been constructed. If someone has deprived you of services because of some sort of underlying fraud, it is not necessary to characterize it as a 'theft'. But if you characterize it as a theft, then it becomes necessary to establish that the thing stolen was 'property'.

Here's an example:

1. I hire a guy to come and cut my grass. I send him an advance payment of $50 and he agrees to come to my address at 13 Mockingbird Lane and cut my grass on Saturday afternoon.

2. My sneaky neighbor knows about this deal, so on Saturday morning, he goes out and paints the number "15" on my mailbox, and paints the number "13" on his mailbox.

3. The contractor shows up, sees "13" on my neighbor's mailbox, and proceeds to cut my neighbor's grass.

Has any property been stolen from me? No. Can I sue my neighbor for fraud and obtain relief in the form of my neighbor having to pay to get my grass cut? Yes.

But if I sue for "conversion" and claim that my right to get my grass cut under the contract was "property" then, yes, I'll box myself into the proposition that the contractual right to grass cutting services is property.

Can I also include a claim against the contractor for not exercising due care in failing to notice that the house numbers were out of order and there was fresh paint on the mailboxes? Sure.

JayDNM · Mar 1, 2017

Thanks for sharing this.. I am new to domaining so this may be a very misguided suggestion, but, what is stopping her from signing the domain ownership over to a close friend or relative to stop it becoming her possession? I am not saying that this is a possible solution as I suspect it would have happened by now, I'm just asking why she can't do this?

GlennD · Mar 2, 2017

jberryhill said:
No, that's simply not true, and you missed my entire point.. . .
Can I also include a claim against the contractor for not exercising due care in failing to notice that the house numbers were out of order and there was fresh paint on the mailboxes? Sure.

You argue that a contract right is just as strong as a property right. That's not true. If a domain thief were to steal my domain name, transfer it to another registrar and sold it, I would rather have a property right in that name that merely a contract right with the former registrar.

platey · Apr 6, 2017

A domain only becomes valuable when someone wants to buy it

Had no one decided to buy it it would be worth approx $10 like the millions of. Coms that never sell

Everyone is entitled to an opinion legally or otherwise

I reckon the domain should stay with existing owner

Brandworthy · Apr 29, 2017

@Slanted just watching the video created by DNHouston, and something that comes to mind here is that the celeb Heidi Powell virtually owns the Google SERP for her name. Getting HiediPowell.com onto page 1 for searches on [heidi powell] might be a good way to get more attention focused on this. I expect the celeb might also alter her behaviour if her target market learns more about how she has tried to take this domain from the rightful owner. Getting as many people to link to the .com might be very helpful here. Similarly, linking to negative stories on authoritative domains (e.g. https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/27/narcissist_heidi_powell_wants_her_dotcom/) so that they get onto page 1 might be beneficial.

Just a thought.

platey · Apr 29, 2017

Any value the. Com may have had to the potential new owner has long been lost due to the methods used in trying to obtain the domain name which the majority of people find unacceptable and will take their custom elsewhere

There is an example of this in the uk where some people refuse to buy a successful entrepreneurs products on principle even tho they may have to pay more for their purchases elsewhere

Because either way this domain name dispute will be settled soon and no doubt it could become main stream news which will probably highlight the methods used to extract a domain from the rightful owner purely because the rightful owner chose not to sell on principal

platey · May 7, 2017

It would be interesting if an outside investor decided to have a bit of fun and games and outbid the current offer on principle for eg if an outside investor was to bid $100k etc to see if their offer was matched which it would have to be matched and increased etc

Its no different to activating a football players release clause in their contract with a football club but having once activated the release clause by offering the amount at which a player can leave that club and join yours etc but to no avail if the club activating the release clause but cannot outbid the highest bidder?

There is no reason why a domain name investor with a few quid can't outbid the current offer made and lease the domain back to the existing owner for $1 a year which would mean the current case would be null and void. Because the current owner wouldnt own the domain but simply using it via a $1 a year lease and thus could not be pursued for the domain as they would no longer owner own the domain

But it may well leave certain parties spitting feathers

TRY · Jun 12, 2017

The following update form HeidiPowell.com

UPDATE MAY 4, 2017
ORAL RULING - JUDGE MARC BARRECA
MOTION DENIED • YET CONTINUED

new hearing of latest motion has been set for Wednesday June 14, 2017 10:00 AM at Marysville Municipal Court.

TRY · Jun 13, 2017

Brandingtheweb.com said:
The following update form HeidiPowell.com

UPDATE MAY 4, 2017
ORAL RULING - JUDGE MARC BARRECA
MOTION DENIED • YET CONTINUED

new hearing of latest motion has been set for Wednesday June 14, 2017 10:00 AM at Marysville Municipal Court.

Source - heidipowell.com
Another update yesterday:
the Trustee filed a request to change the hearing date to July 12, 2017. His reasoning for requesting a continuance is his need for time to review the declarations we filed on June 7, 2017 which were filed in response to his motion to sell my domain name and contract with Godaddy.

Gaptooth · Aug 17, 2017

Update:
August 16, 2017
Court Filing - ORDER Granting Allowing Debtor's Motion Stay To Be Heard Pending Appeal

Hearing date is set for 8/22/2017 at 02:00 PM
Judge Barreca's Courtroom, U.S. Courthouse,
Room 7106, 700 Stewart St, Seattle, WA 98101

https://twitter.com/heidipowell/status/898290388196139008

Gaptooth · Aug 30, 2017

I'm sad to report that the same judge who decided to sell her my name has denied our motion to obtain a Stay. A stay would have stopped the sale waiting for an appeal decision. Without the stay there is no point to an appeal as the sale will take place without the ability to get it back should we win on appeal. In place of a stay the trustee has requested a $20K bond as insurance if we lose on appeal (to stop the sale while appealing) to protect his interests should she walk away during the appeal process. The bonding company requires a $20K letter of credit to cover it. People who have gone through bankruptcy can't get a letter of credit. Unless there is a miracle by Monday it's gone.

discuss Defend HeidiPowell.com against a Bullying Celebrity Thief!

VIP Member

Domains88.comTop Member

Domains88.comTop Member

Top Member

Domains88.comTop Member

Domains88.comTop Member

Domains88.comTop Member

Domains88.comTop Member

VIP Member

Top Member

Top Member

Top Member

Top Member

Top Member

New Member

Top Member

Established Member

New Member

Top Member

Established Member

Top Member

Top Member

StrongPunch.comTop Member

StrongPunch.comTop Member

Established Member

Established Member

Similar threads

We're social

Pinned

Appreciation

Agreement