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

tonyk2000 said:

This panelist is simply unfair. I am wondering why.
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?

Click to expand...

Why are you trying to justify a bad faith registration. 2 wrong's don't make a right.

His $8 "Purch" wen't to zero. The excessive sentiment for a bad faith registration is alarming

artstar said:

this guy has made enough on domains dont u think

Click to expand...

Clearly he hasn't.

My feeling is that big companies, including utility companies, make millions and millions of dollars selling air, water, gas, etc. To me, it's BS that anyone can take away a domain because it's priced too high. That's ridiculous.

It appears to me that the panelist was set on giving the domain to the gas company.

I will tell you this. When I reg certain names, like energy, technology, etc, some of them I price based on what I believe the domain can do for those businesses.

It has already been determined that registering domain names for the purpose of selling at a profit is not bad faith in and of itself.

Who decided voice.com was worth 30,000,000. Could that same panelist have just said, hand over the name voice because the price is too high?

It's BS IMO...period.

What @biggie mentioned about these automated appraisals is correct. They are bad news. Not to mention that GD sells names for more than their appraised value all the time.

I hope Mike Mann fights this. The basis for the decision was very incorrect. IMO

I wouldn't have paid 100k for the domain, nor would I have paid 30,000,000 for any domain. But people do and no panel should set price limits.

Furthermore, much like Zillow, GD must create a mechanism for domains, especially ones up for sale by owner, to be opted out of their auto valuation.

I believe Zillow was forced (sued) to institute such an opt out mechanism and instead show only the sales price.

Remi said:

Godaddy's appraisal tool seems to be doing more harm than good (my opinion)...

I've had deals that fell through because clients will only pay based on the tool's valuation...

Click to expand...

100% spot on.

.

AGAME said:

No, I dont - and I dont even know the guy.

So now its ok to decide people have "made enough"? Who gets to decide? You? How much is "enough" anyway?

Wow. Scary.

Click to expand...

its a rhetorical question dude! get it??

This is a tough call..

I disagree with much of the argument, because the panel cannot determine the domains value. The domain owner determines that...and if they ask too high then move on or negotiate. Even if the asking price was really excessive, that should not have any place to help make a judgement.

However, arguing about the valuation is a waste because that wasn't the core of why the domain owner lost the case. The core reason is because the company has been using that exact name/mark for over 60 years!
So it was determined to be a matter of bad faith. The price itself was added, because I don't know anyone here who would have asked that much for a name like that. As a matter of fact... we skip names like that in the drop list daily. I owned promoscode.com... I let it drop. But promocode.com would have been a different story. My point is this: The panel saw that the name was not just registered off a 60 year old established mark... but the price was boosted because the owner saw that wow, this is a gas company..94k is nothing to them. They make millions or billions right.....

It appears, that added wood to the fire..as if the company would have overlooked the questionable registration and purchased the name for a few thousand bucks. But they felt..you took our 60 year old mark and then on top of it, you're charging us a hand and a leg to use our own mark.

I think if the company was new and they filed for a trademark recently then the result would go in the favor of the domain owner. But i really think the gas company would of avoided going this route if they name was listed for lets say 5k to 10k. I think they took offense.

Edited/ addition: And if you look on hugedomains.com and maybe others..they often register peoples full names.. but they sell them low because they know it's a risk...but they know people would rather pay $695 than pay 4 figures and go through court for the name. So bad faith is not out of reach.

As long as these panels don't over reach and start robbing people of their names.

MadAboutDomains said:

I'd like to see the formula that the guy used to calculate the price.

Click to expand...

I'd like to see the formula MM used to ask $94,888. Maybe I could use the formula on my own domains. My sales need some help

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 to this decision.

=====================================================================
Complainant contends the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant asserts that its trademark and tradename LAKES GAS has been used for almost sixty years, being first used in 1959, long before the January 8, 2011 registration of the disputed domain name by Respondent. Complainant further asserts that the addition of the top-level domain name is not a defense to a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s LAKES GAS trademark.

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts Respondent does not have any applications or registrations for LAKES GAS nor is it commonly known by the name “Lakes Gas.” Complainant further asserts Respondent does not use and is not preparing to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Complainant contends the disputed domain name promotes or suggests a connection or relationship between Respondent and Complainant. Complainant asserts the unauthorized use of Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name undermines a claim of bona fide use under the Policy. Complainant asserts that Respondent chose to register the disputed domain name because of its significance vis-à-vis Complainant’s LAKES GAS trademark and Complainant’s associated goodwill and reputation.

======================================================================



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...

And what about the trademark owner having to take due diligence in protecting their trademark of 60 years, but failed to register the .com when it was available for registration 8 years ago. Or never approached the seller in the last 8 years. Sounds to me like a little negligence on the TM owner's part

Obvious cybersquat!

draco said:

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.

Click to expand...

There you go. Dropping the domain IS proof of negligence on the TM owners part.

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.

Click to expand...

Agree. That really should be the reason for losing the UDRP.

Rory Ivey said:

94k is nothing to them. They make millions or billions right.....

Click to expand...

Total horses*it. You clearly haven't seen the balance sheet of a Corporation that size they're not Glencore. $94k is somebody's job mortgage and livelyhood to say it's "nothing" shows the level of your thinking. Before speculating on looking at the revenue also see the liabilities section

Furthermore why is Mike asking $100k for lakesgas presumably his liabilities(renewals) are so high its the only way to break even. Since when can you offset your own bad debt onto somebody else via a bad faith registration. Complete BS stop defending this nonsense

Panel made the right decision. End of story

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...

This is extremely unhealthy thinking. Domain names are not basic needs, nobody is dying if unable to get one, there is almost infinite choice of other names to go with. No matter how insane someone's asking price looks to you or anyone else, domain registrant has this right.

Your statement gives this impression you are wiling to accept some kind of authority to judge the name's worth, which is your right of course, but please don't drag "us domainers as a whole" into this.

stub said:

There you go. Dropping the domain IS proof of negligence on the TM owners part.

Click to expand...

Dirt!

It was the right decision. Mike clearly registered that name in bad faith.

artstar said:

its a rhetorical question dude! get it??

Click to expand...

Apparently, I did - which is why the comment was deleted.

LakeGas.com

.com is the only extension registered as of today
there is no need for that company to own that exact name

maybe it was registered in bad faith
then this should be the reason for the UDRP


but price?
thats an unacceptable reason to me

that's the last thing that should be taken into equasion
somebody could have convinced Mr Mann sell it for less . who knows

the domain is not worthless thats for sure
at least not for companies that exploit gas from lakes

or want to transform farths into water
( a potential future technology for cleaner air )

somebody maybe a guy or a future company called "Lake"
may want to sell gas

did Mr Mann offer it to that complaining company?


if he was referring that company on his website
as he does sometimes
I would not have recommended that approach


before you set a high price on a domain
be sure your legal position is strong

@frank-germany Great poem. It doesn't rhyme enough for my liking though.

frank-germany said:

before you set a high price on a domain
be sure your legal position is strong

Click to expand...

Your final stanza, quoted above, raises a serious point. If you want to protect your domain, don't ever quote a price for it... wait for offers? I wonder if this is really viable as a domainer. Is any asking price ever going to be acceptable to a UDRP panel?

Just musing...

Wipo is like parliament as quite a dramatic scene to watch.

MadAboutDomains said:

@frank-germany Great poem. It doesn't rhyme enough for my liking though.


Your final stanza raises a serious point, quoted above, raises a serious point. If you want to protect your domain, don't ever quote a price for it... wait for offers? I wonder if this is really viable as a domainer. Is any asking price ever going to be acceptable to a UDRP panel?

Just musing...

Click to expand...

before you set a high price on a domain
be sure your legal position is strong, man


better ..

People go on and on about the supportive argument that the price was too high. Doesn't anyone check sources anymore these days?

Read the full report and you'll see the ruling has nothing to do with the price!

I blame the millennials

In my opinion, the UDRP "panel of one" ruling was correct for the trademark reason alone ... whether the name dropped or not, the TM was made, and still active, before the domain name was owned by Mr. Mann ... but I think the ruling went too far to bring price based on valuation into the equation - didn't need to.

As far as Mr. Mann, if he owns 300,000 domain names, he has a large yearly price he needs to pay in renewal fees just to break even. That's his business. His domain list was previously posted (can't seem to find it now), with a majority of his names at $24,888 - all of which have "online valuations" much less. So what? Shouldn't matter. That's his business.

Here is an article on Mike Mann's pricing levels:
https://onlinedomain.com/2019/03/06...e-mann-shares-his-domain-name-pricing-levels/

Okay - I get it. But perhaps the UDRP panelist brought price into the ruling because of Mike Mann's own quote, as he prices domains as a "progressive tax on the rich." So in this case, maybe he did see this was a gas company, so instead of pricing at his usual $24K, he used his $94K number. If he didn't check on the TM, that's his fault, and it's the price of doing business ... which in this case he doesn't really end up losing much. He won't appeal, no way he wins IMHO.

The gas company could have hand registered the .co. Or LGasCo.com. So many alternatives.

I say it's yet another case of rich corporate people showing off their "self-perceived" power... that only THEY can set exorbitant prices on THEIR products & services, while not allowing others to the same back to them!