news Mike Mann lost LakesGas .com at the WIPO (ridiculous!)

Internet.Domains said:

the mention of price by the panelist sets a new precedent that is most disturbing in itself.

Click to expand...

see another loss, where price was mentioned
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-0552

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The use made of it – offering it for sale at the high price already indicated – is use in bad faith under the Policy.

imo...

MapleDots said:

in my opinion the panelist made the correct decision

Click to expand...

The determination of prices is of great significance in an economy, but, imho, the problem with this case is that there is nothing in Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy that allows UDRP panel to become "price setting panel". Panelist Winterfeldt does not understand this, unfortunately.

It may well be that mr. Mann had this Complainant in mind at the time he regged this domain, and regged the domain exactly because of 50+ years old TM. We do not know. We need to read the full Response (and the full Complaint) to find out. If it is indeed the case, then the decision may be correct. It would mean that the domain was both registered in bad faith and is used in bad faith.

But, what do we see now? "Price too high, it is bad faith."

MapleDots said:

Not so sure I agree with you on this one.

Am I the only one that sees what the panelist did?
I think there is definitely some merit in this decision.



As a domainer I hope to never be in a similar position but in this particular case Mann should have seen the obvious and released the domain at market value.

Click to expand...

I appreciate you sharing more information about this case. It sheds a whole lot more light into what actually occurred. From reading more of this complaint, it clearly shows that the decision was based on evidence that showed bad faith from Mike Mann using a name that has been established since 1959. Then as a result of having no legitimate reason to register a trademarked name brings in the issue of price, why are you trying to sell a trademark name for that kind of money. I believe Common Sense has to Prevail in matters like these.

MadAboutDomains said:

OmarVG said:

I 100% Agree with the panelist, that Mega Crappy domain is Worthless, not even hand reg fee $9 USD

Click to expand...

The panelist didn't say that though...

Click to expand...

korganian said:

Actually that's exactly what the moron panelist said because he used that opinion to rule "bad faith" which was the foundation of his decision to transfer the domain. This panelist needs to be sued himself and barred from ever being a panelist again.

Click to expand...

Not true. I just read the entire thing,at no point in the document does it say the domain is worth $0. Are we reading the same UDRP text at https://domaingang.com/domain-law/mike-mann-lost-udrp-over-generic-domain-lakesgas-com-at-the-wipo/ ?

tonyk2000 said:

Brian J. Winterfeldt
Sole Panelist
Date: June 21, 2019

(quote end).

A domainer should always order (and, yes, pay for) 3 members panel. Why did mr. Mann fail to do this? Any lost UDRP can be subsequently used against the Respondent (domainer) in other cases: "the Respondent is a proven cybersquatter, as found in other UDRP cases blah-blah-blah"

Panelist Winterfeldt, however, gained more customers. More Complainants will now request this panelist in 3-member panels. Pure business...

Click to expand...

Mike Mann is no stranger to losing a UDRP http://www.udrpsearch.com/search?query=Domain+Asset+Holdings&search=parties

He has gone to court and won some back, https://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/21/mike-mann-overturns-udrp-decision-court/

The wording and logic used in this case creates such a dangerous slippery slope that it should terrify all NP members. I am surprised to hear established members agree with this case. You have to look past the name in question and use your imagination as to how this wording and logic will be used to take your personal portfolio away from you in the future. It is hard to find any name or phrase that nobody in the history of mankind has ever used before. Also the opinion of high price is very subjective. Most people think $500 is too high for a domain name.

equity78 said:

Mike Mann is no stranger to losing a UDRP http://www.udrpsearch.com/search?query=Domain+Asset+Holdings&search=parties

He has gone to court and won some back, https://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/21/mike-mann-overturns-udrp-decision-court/

Click to expand...

By sheer numbers he will lose some UDRP's, especially when considering panelists are about about as correct as little league umpires. In other words, bad calls will happen from time to time, but the game goes on.

Maybe us domainers as a whole should take this as a lesson to not ask outrageous prices for mediocre names.

MadAboutDomains said:

Not true. I just read the entire thing,at no point in the document does it say the domain is worth $0. Are we reading the same UDRP text at https://domaingang.com/domain-law/mike-mann-lost-udrp-over-generic-domain-lakesgas-com-at-the-wipo/ ?

Click to expand...

Sorry but you must be confusing me with someone else because I never said anything like that.

Original decision:

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2019/d2019-0830.html

korganian said:

Sorry but you must be confusing me with someone else because I never said anything like that.

Click to expand...

You appear to be making a habit of not reading the post that you're replying to. Therein lies the issue.

This panelist is simply unfair. I am wondering why.

For example:

"Furthermore, somewhat mendaciously, the list price was removed from the web page at the time of this Panel’s determination. Changing the content featured on the website located at a disputed domain name is further indication of bad faith under the Policy"
(quote end).

What was the respondent supposed to do? Since the domain has "legal lock" on it, which was placed by the registrar (eNom) after udrp arrived, Respondent obviously changed the domain status to "not for sale". Why list the domain for sale if it is locked and cannot be delivered to any buyer?

ye its a bad domain in the whole scheme of things. imo not worth over $3000 just because it has a history means nothing really, guys like mm think they can overprice any domain due to their reputation and history and get away ioth it its called greed and self entitlement

this guy has made enough on domains dont u think? ITS ONLY WORDS people!

if a domainer who is unknown tried to sell this bogus domain for $100k they would be laughed off this forum!

Billy Wagner said:

Maybe us domainers as a whole should take this as a lesson to not ask outrageous prices for mediocre names.

Click to expand...

Who gets to authoritatively decide the definition of mediocre?

...

equity78 said:

Who gets to authoritatively decide the definition of mediocre?

Click to expand...

Past sales history. Give me an example of something similar to LakesGas.com that sold for $94K and I'll retract my statement.

Billy Wagner said:

Past sales history. Give me an example of something similar to LakesGas.com that sold for $94K and I'll retract my statement.

Click to expand...

That wasn't your statement, you made a broad statement, "Maybe us domainers as a whole should take this as a lesson to not ask outrageous prices for mediocre names."

So again who decides the definition of mediocre?

This case is a bellwether for absolutely nothing, it was the opinion of one panelist. And Mann might sue in court as he has done in the past. https://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/21/mike-mann-overturns-udrp-decision-court/

Domainers are not a team, each person will price their names as they see fit and like Gerald M Levine wrote,
What’s So Outrageous Asking High Prices for Domain Names?

https://iplegalcorner.com/whats-so-outrageous-asking-high-prices-for-domain-names/

The single most prominent reason long-held domain names are lost is failure to properly curate (by which I mean populating the website with bad faith content from which registration in bad faith can be inferred). Price is not a factor for bad faith without concrete proof of the 4(b)(i) elements,

equity78 said:

That wasn't your statement, you made a broad statement, "Maybe us domainers as a whole should take this as a lesson to not ask outrageous prices for mediocre names."

So again who decides the definition of mediocre?

Click to expand...

It's a good question. This is a name that's not mediocre to the purchaser... It's down right perfect for them.

@MadAboutDomains right the answer is no one is the authoritative body to decide that.

equity78 said:

@MadAboutDomains right the answer is no one is the authoritative body to decide that.

Click to expand...

Ultimately the entire domain price, or the price for anything for that matter, is all an opinion. So I'll recant my statement to interject the words "in my opinion". Which in the end only matters to me.

But if you buy a name to sell to ONE company, then you put a price tag like $94K on it, it will eventually catch up to you one way or another. In my humble opinion.

A couple other things about the decision:

Lakes Gas owned the domain name. They let it drop. If they're a large established company as they claim, one could argue that they decided they had no interest in the domain and let it go. They almost certainly couldn't have had it as their website, or they would have known it was gone. Plus they missed the redemption period. It's not like one day it's an active website and the next it's down and belongs to Mike Mann. Yet they thought previous ownership was in favor of the Complainant.

Why would Mike Mann do this, "
Further, the website located at the disputed domain name identifies Complainant’s business on the bottom of the webpage as a potentially associated business, furthering establishing the connection between Complainant and their rights in LAKES GAS."? That's just asking for a UDRP.

Billy Wagner said:

Ultimately the entire domain price, or the price for anything for that matter, is all an opinion. So I'll recant my statement to interject the words "in my opinion". Which in the end only matters to me.

But if you buy a name to sell to ONE company, then you put a price tag like $94K on it, it will eventually catch up to you one way or another. In my humble opinion.

Click to expand...

Well that's fine Billy now we are talking about what one person does and I get what you mean, my point was people put all kinds of prices on stuff.

Here is one, same way a name that seemed to be looking to sell to the company and they actually owned the name previously.

Enersis.com sold in 2015 for $145,237 sold by a domain investor Level2.com it was parked at ParkLogic. The buyer was

Registrant Organization: Enersis S.A.
Registrant Street: Santa Rosa, 76
Registrant City: Santiago
Registrant State/Province:
Registrant Postal Code: 1557
Registrant Country: CL

they let it expire because when I look at whois history back in 2010 this company from Chile was the registrant. Level2 got it held it, parked for 3 years and the same registrant paid $145,237 to get it back. They filed a UDRP in 2015 but then withdrew it.

https://namebio.com/enersis.com

equity78 said:

who decides the definition of mediocre?

Click to expand...

equity78 said:

the answer is no one is the authoritative body to decide that.

Click to expand...

here's a scenario for ya -

the "definitive appraisal tool", will make that decision,
and it will decide what is mediocre or not, based on the $ value it returns

as it will be seen as "the domain authority" of pricing.

now, what will end up being the definitive appraisal tool, is the question.
the votes will be tallied after the question is asked.....

what is the best appraisal tool?



imo...

MapleDots said:

The name was in use since 1959

There is no logical explanation why Lakes and gas was used in combination other than to sell it to the end user who has been using the name since 1959. It makes no sense in any other way and in my opinion the panelist that made the judgement saw this and ruled against Mr Mann.

I hate to say it..... believe me I hate saying it but.... in my opinion the panelist made the correct decision.

Click to expand...

You can copy and paste this same text when the first NP member decides to cry with outrage over a Libra domain

Internet.Domains said:

So we have entered an era where if a domain has an asking price above an appraisal tool it is subject to loss. Sad. Truly sad.

Click to expand...

Bad faith registration doesn't count. Mike should know better