IT.COM

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

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

Dondomainer

domainnamescom.comTop Member
Impact
2,328
Mike Mann‘s asking price of $94,888 dollars for the domain LakesGas.com was referred to as “exorbitantly high” by the sole panelist at the WIPO who handled the UDRP.

and “This Panel takes notice that the estimated fair market value for this disputed domain name ranges from about USD 650 to about 2,300.”


Source: https://domaingang.com/domain-law/mike-mann-lost-udrp-over-generic-domain-lakesgas-com-at-the-wipo/


Comment : Everyone has lost here, no only Mike Mann.

We already knew that we were not sure, but this is an open statement of how much danger there is right now
 
Last edited:
25
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
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 :)

thanks:

"Complainant asserts it formerly owned the disputed domain name but inadvertently allowed the registration to lapse, after which time Respondent was able to register the disputed domain name."

"Respondent asserts Complainant filed a trademark application for the LAKES GAS mark only after the disputed domain name was registered by Respondent."

"The Panel takes notice that Respondent filed its Response a day after the clearly established due date. "
- WTF


- here we are:
"The Panel agrees with Respondent that Complainant lacks a registered trademark in LAKES GAS, and Respondent registered the disputed domain name before any application to register this trademark in the United States. However, as discussed above, Complainant established common law rights in the LAKES GAS mark well before Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Respondent knew or should have known, even based on “the most rudimentary Internet search,” about Complainant’s business and its protectable common law rights in its LAKES GAS mark."


-and that's a really bad idea:
"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. "

"Absent some genuine use, or intended use, of the disputed domain name in a way that relates to the asserted descriptive meaning, merely offering such a domain name for sale does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests in it."


- High price is a reason:
"Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is to offer it for sale at an exorbitantly high price of USD 94,888. This Panel takes notice that the estimated fair market value for this disputed domain name ranges from about USD 650 to about 2,300. This supports an inference of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) and/or 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Furthermore, somewhat mendaciously, the list price was removed from the web page at the time of this Panel’s determination."


-Important!:
"Changing the content featured on the website located at a disputed domain name is further indication of bad faith under the Policy."
 
Last edited:
3
•••
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 :)
I'm sorry but I really think that you have failed to read the original source. They have to prove 3 points. One of them is bad faith. In the bad faith justification they state:
Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is to offer it for sale at an exorbitantly high price of USD 94,888. This Panel takes notice that the estimated fair market value for this disputed domain name ranges from about USD 650 to about 2,300. This supports an inference of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) and/or 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

How does that support what you say that the ruling has nothing to do with the price?

Love from a millennial :whistle:
 
2
•••
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
You obviously can't read?

Before you throw stones, learn to read and understand in context. You took a text out of the context and you are left with a con.

I in no wise defended Mann....I agreed with the decision.
The 94k was part of my argument in favor of the decision... Meaning mann firstly regged a name that's been established for over 60 years, and then made the ambitious and outrageous decision to ask 94k from a company he believes can pay it. I furthermore stated that myself and many other domainers don't even register names like that from drop lists and I gave promoscode.com as an example.

But obviously you can't read or fuking understand.
Take that fuking misguided attitude somewhere else.
who think this is?
 
Last edited:
1
•••
The domain is not generic. It was registered in 2011, decades after being established as a brand by someone else.

I can easily see why the domain was awarded to the plaintiff.
 
2
•••
I'm sorry but I really think that you have failed to read the original source. They have to prove 3 points. One of them is bad faith. In the bad faith justification they state:


How does that support what you say that the ruling has nothing to do with the price?

Love from a millennial :whistle:

Well, this case basically checks positive for every definition of bad faith as stated in paragraph 4(b) so... :)

Love, peace and happiness back at ya ;)

PS. I have nothing against millennials actually but who else does my grumpy generation have to make fun of instead?
 
3
•••
if a day to day domainer had asked for an appraisal opinion on np for such a domain they would be laughed off np guaranteed and it would be touted as garbage worth reg fee. but because its some guy (mm) with a lot of sales and years in the biz its ok to ask $95k for it and expect it. so the lesson here folks is ask for as much as u can and dismiss what opinions are as domains r worth what the buyer forks over, period!

jack all your domains prices up and the buyers will have to follow dont u think? stop giving them away!
 
3
•••
If he wins he makes 100K, if he loses he loses 1K or less, so why not ask such high prices, if it works. I'm tired of 2 figure offers and not receiving responses to my counteroffers, and some people sell domains for 1000 times what I can sell for. Having your own marketplace makes big difference, because you can see IP and more (angry at Sedo and Afternic).
 
2
•••
If he wins he makes 100K, if he loses he loses 1K or less, so why not ask such high prices, if it works. I'm tired of 2 figure offers and not receiving responses to my counteroffers, and some people sell domains for 1000 times what I can sell for. Having your own marketplace makes big difference, because you can see IP and more (angry at Sedo and Afternic).
YEA THE RICH GET RICHER
 
2
•••
The complainant can count themselves extremely fortunate here.

In previous cases, it's been decided that because the domain was on an expired domain list, that the respondent was registering domains that were no longer use i.e. in good faith.

It's a consistent feature of trademark law that you must enforce your trademark rights, otherwise the mark loses power.

The situation is now that we have some people been treated harshly by the system:

Cohort #1 - you failed to renew the domain on time. You let it expire. The system is the same for everyone. Hard luck.

Cohort #2 - ah sure you've been around for ages and you seem nice - ah sure we'll let you off. Here have your domain back and let's give two fingers to the domainer. Ha!

Rough justice for some.
 
Last edited:
3
•••
Regarding the Trademark: Trademarks are for specific uses, which is why many companies TM in more than one category. You TM the name AND how it is being used.

In this case, according to TESS on the US Patent and Trade Office website, Lakes Gas has 2 tm registered both for "IC 039. US 100 105. G & S: Fuel delivery services featuring propane and heating oil; storage, distribution and transportation of propane and heating oil"

I could theoretically start a gas exploration company named Lakes Gas and not be in TM violation.

As a matter of fact there is a company with a Similar name that would could be confusing since it is also in the gas industry called Great Lakes Trnsmission which also has a TM for use of:
IC 039. US 100 105. G & S: TRANSMISSION OF NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC GAS THROUGH PIPELINES.

One is delivery and the other is pipeline transmission. Both could benefit from this name, as would the theoretical gas exploration company.

Trademark law is not cut and dry in the United States.
 
6
•••
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.

But that's not the issue at hand, it's the rogue panelist taking it upon himself to puke all over the UDRP policy by offering his "valuation skills" to the proceedings and then using that valuation as part of the basis for the decision.

It's insane, and had the panelist stuck to the UDRP policy and rendered the same decision, I don't think you'd see anywhere near the outcry. This moron panelist is trying to open up Pandora's box.
 
1
•••
But that's not the issue at hand, it's the rogue panelist taking it upon himself to puke all over the UDRP policy by offering his "valuation skills" to the proceedings and then using that valuation as part of the basis for the decision.

It's insane, and had the panelist stuck to the UDRP policy and rendered the same decision, I don't think you'd see anywhere near the outcry. This moron panelist is trying to open up Pandora's box.

There should be a peer review of such single panelists decisions, with at least a statement that the case cannot be used, to base future decisions on. IMHO.
 
1
•••
1. You have way to many ads on your site, it hurts my eyes lol.

2. Well played.... not cool but was well played by the buyer....
 
1
•••
1
•••
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.
Really?
 
1
•••
1
•••
5
•••
I'm really not surprised. Does anyone see any value in that to anyone but that company?
Also, I wonder how much "bad faith" is based on previous behavior?
Look at some of the cases he's lost before:
facebookclub.com
facebookdevelopment.com
facebookfest.com
facebookking.com
facebookland.com
grandtheftautovideos.com

Anyone wanting to hold those?
 
2
•••
I'm really not surprised. Does anyone see any value in that to anyone but that company?
Also, I wonder how much "bad faith" is based on previous behavior?
Look at some of the cases he's lost before:
facebookclub.com
facebookdevelopment.com
facebookfest.com
facebookking.com
facebookland.com
grandtheftautovideos.com

Anyone wanting to hold those?

This one is my favorite of his: apple/technology/king

Still for sale btw.
 
1
•••
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...
same and is happening more often now as the tool has become more popular.
 
1
•••
1
•••
Last edited:
1
•••
This is quite a ridiculous decision in another UDRP that Mike lost. Is owning the name of a place a trademark and can it be trademarked by Sears company?

upload_2019-7-22_5-41-0.png
 
2
•••
6
•••
It says claim denied.

Damn, you guys had me scared there for a second, and I was having France.com flashbacks.

And this brings up another point, there was a comment about how many UDRP claims Mike has lost, but what about all the cases he's WON?

Those should weigh just as heavily, as they represent spurious attacks by companies who do not have a legal right to the name. Throw enough mud and some of its going to stick.
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Back