discuss Intimidation Tactics: Share the most absurd attempts at intimidation!

Silentptnr said:

I think there should be a standard letter that a domain owner could email/send, that makes very clear all 3 of the necessary components to win a udrp. Possibly even pinpoints the weakness of the hijacker's case.

Click to expand...

DanSanchez said:

Count me in on that, we would all benefit from a collective effort for defense. Many business groups do this for reoccurring issues.

Click to expand...

Mister Funsky said:

Great idea for a thread...it is prudent for us (domain investors) to have a plan in place for if/when we have one of these termites crawl out of the woodwork as in the example you posted.

Click to expand...

karmaco said:

A form letter of some sort would be helpful. In general, for self and name protection, words should be chosen carefully when responding to an inquiry. That is not caving to intimidation— its just smart.

Click to expand...

100% NO !!! Sorry for being so loud and blunt guys .. lol .. particularly since I know your intentions are obviously to be helpful to others. But the #1 weapon domainers have against unethical and immoral lawyers and "apparent" trademark owners is to pretend to be stupid and string them along and let them continue to make false statements and mistakes. The more mistakes they make the better. Like in @pooky's case the person used the word "profit". Just by the very fact they used that word legally opens the door to now allow @pooky to make future counter offers, whereas if they used the words "compensation for your time" any counter-offer by Pooky could have been used against him depending on how the initial contact was worded.

My advice is to never show what you know and always be as vague as possible. The dumber they think you are, the more aggressive they will be and the more likely they will be to do/say something that will later go to prove their bad faith. Even go so far as to ask seemingly stupid questions about why they think they have rights to the domain etc etc. The less you say and the more they say means that if it actually does end up in legal proceedings, you have an arsenal of proof and evidence supporting you and proving the bad faith of the complainant.

So the bottom line is NEVER EVER "educate" or "inform" potential complainants, and instead ALWAYS string them along and allow them to make mistakes.

Eventually when you have enough proof of bad faith you can use that to shut things down if you are 100% sure. But until you are 100% sure of your case, say as little as possible and get them to say too much.

Most importantly .. UDRPs are supposed to be standard and have rules .. but there are indeed many grey-zone cases where you can never be 100%. Or even worse .. those same grey-zone case where one panellist would vote one way and a different panellist would vote another way (even with the same information/evidence) .. so it's for that reason why it's always ideal to get as much supporting evidence in your favour as possible. In borderline cases unethical behaviour could make the difference if you can prove it. Which means whenever possible, NEVER giving them information or help and ALWAYS try to get them to say as much as possible.

In fact, it wouldn't even be a bad idea to pretend to be stupid on the subject of trademarks and ask them why they think they are legally entitled to the domain .. because if they come back with reasons that are not actual rules/laws that would go some ways to prove their bad faith.

Also .. never ever even use the term UDRP unless they use it first. NEVER! lol

karmaco said:

Before you reply to anyone no matter how rude or aggressive they come across as— do your research. Sometimes people walk into a trap by their not thought out replies. You can put someone in their place in the nicest and most professional way possible. Never let them see you sweat it or become annoyed.

Click to expand...

Yes .. this is why you should always respond with the minimum possible. Above I said I put the lawyer of a global top 100 brand in his place and shut him down completely. But it was after several months of VERY CAREFULLY thought out and planned correspondence. In the end he had zero on us (the domain wasn't mine, I was just helping a fellow domainer) and I had multiple emails of him crossing an ethical line trying to intimidate me. Each time he wrote something new I just laughed at how he was completely unaware he was digging his own grave. Then I'd wait a few days or even weeks and respond in a way that made him make even more mistakes. There was even a couple of times where I knew if I didn't write back, he would eventually reply with something that showed even more bad faith. Sure enough time after time like clock-work each my my responses and non-responses got him to say EXACTLY what I wanted him to say. Eventually it was enough for me to have checkmated him in my head .. but it was months and months of carefully thought out responses.

By far the best thing you can do when it comes to trademarks is learn and inform yourself on the actual rules and laws. Over the last few years I've become particularly informed on the subject thanks to closely listening to everything @jberryhill posts as well as podcasts both he and @Zak Muscovitch have given with @DomainSherpa and @DomainNameWire.

So DEFINITELY do not try this at home unless you've informed yourself. But either way the best rule of thumb to keep in mind is always say as little as possible and get them to say as much as possible. Obviously it won't make much difference if you're up against a good and ethical lawyer, or if you truly are infringing on someone else's trademark .. but always minimise your potential mistakes and maximise theirs.


While he might not post often, far and away the best resource for domainers on NamePros is the search result for @jberryhill posts. There is absolutely no way I or anyone can thank him enough for the vast amounts of information he has shared over the years .. you are throwing away crucial domainer education if you don't follow him. So to be clear .. thanks @jberryhill and @Zak Muscovitch!

biggie said:

Hi

sometimes, subtle intimidation works best,
when you don't realize it....
when you're being intimidated along with the rest

being silenced by individuals in a clique or by those who are riding in the wagon
it can come from a single source of power, energized by the volume of likes
where you remain silenced, as not to get dis... liked

it's a force, which can be innocent or intentional and maybe even coincidental, when it happens.
but if there is a pattern....


imo...

Click to expand...

Well I don't know what Biggie's saying there, but I'm sure using it in the responding letter would suffice to ward off any sort of bad guy.

Intimidation is worst tactic to reach goal

Ategy said:

100% NO !!! Sorry for being so loud and blunt guys .. lol .. particularly since I know your intentions are obviously to be helpful to others. But the #1 weapon domainers have against unethical and immoral lawyers and "apparent" trademark owners is to pretend to be stupid and string them along and let them continue to make false statements and mistakes. The more mistakes they make the better. Like in @pooky's case the person used the word "profit". Just by the very fact they used that word legally opens the door to now allow @pooky to make future counter offers, whereas if they used the words "compensation for your time" any counter-offer by Pooky could have been used against him depending on how the initial contact was worded.

Click to expand...

That is your take on the issue and you are welcome to it...we all have opinions, sometime opposing, but when you have done this as long as I have and have successfully beat more than one of these morons back, please do not shout at me.

Although I did not read every word in the thread, I did not see any suggested templates for a 'response' letter. In over 20+ years I have developed about 12 'canned' responses based upon how the initial contact/inquiry is worded from genuinely interest parties in my names...and no, I am not going to post them all here (not until I hang my domainer hat up and then I will post all my secrets here, on namepros).

However, I am more than eager to help design a generic letter/response that would be a starting place for a response to an erroneous claim...especially for a beginner to use. You are correct in that the initial response by the domain investor could cause an issue if worded improperly when there is a challenge to ownership rights and/or trademark claims.

Any response should be short and sweet, make no mention of selling the domain and should convey the sense (either directly worded or through insinuation) that ownership will be defended. Maybe @Rob Monster will chime in, especially since he and @DanSanchez are in constant contact, with some ideas.

This is a perfect time when we should all come together with specific answers so we can work as a unified group. btw, thanks for the expired/closeout work you do [for] us!

EDIT: I added 'for' above in case my English teacher mother is looking down

Ategy said:

Yes .. this is why you should always respond with the minimum possible. Above I said I put the lawyer of a global top 100 brand in his place and shut him down completely. But it was after several months of VERY CAREFULLY thought out and planned correspondence. In the end he had zero on us (the domain wasn't mine, I was just helping a fellow domainer) and I had multiple emails of him crossing an ethical line trying to intimidate me. Each time he wrote something new I just laughed at how he was completely unaware he was digging his own grave. Then I'd wait a few days or even weeks and respond in a way that made him make even more mistakes. There was even a couple of times where I knew if I didn't write back, he would eventually reply with something that showed even more bad faith. Sure enough time after time like clock-work each my my responses and non-responses got him to say EXACTLY what I wanted him to say. Eventually it was enough for me to have checkmated him in my head .. but it was months and months of carefully thought out responses.

By far the best thing you can do when it comes to trademarks is learn and inform yourself on the actual rules and laws. Over the last few years I've become particularly informed on the subject thanks to closely listening to everything @jberryhill posts as well as podcasts both he and @Zak Muscovitch have given with @DomainSherpa and @DomainNameWire.

So DEFINITELY do not try this at home unless you've informed yourself. But either way the best rule of thumb to keep in mind is always say as little as possible and get them to say as much as possible. Obviously it won't make much difference if you're up against a good and ethical lawyer, or if you truly are infringing on someone else's trademark .. but always minimise your potential mistakes and maximise theirs.


While he might not post often, far and away the best resource for domainers on NamePros is the search result for @jberryhill posts. There is absolutely no way I or anyone can thank him enough for the vast amounts of information he has shared over the years .. you are throwing away crucial domainer education if you don't follow him. So to be clear .. thanks @jberryhill and @Zak Muscovitch!

Click to expand...

I don't think I could play dumb if I received a communication requesting I give up my domain or face a udrp. I think I would be firm.

@Mister Funsky .. I know what you're trying to say .. and I 100% AGREE that your intentions are to be super helpful!

However .. the bigger problem remains that every domain is different. In fact .. it could be in many cases that indeed the domain owner is in the wrong and actually infringing on another persons/companies trademark. Thus by sending a "template" generic reply they could indeed be making things worse.

The only thing people should do when they receive intimidation tactics is say as little as possible and then inform themselves to get as accurate a pulse on the specific situation for the specific domain.


That being said .. also 100% YES .. for more experienced domainers who have a basic understanding of trademarks and the UDRP process .. then developing a template is fine because you should already know when and when not to use it, as well as when and how to tweak it when necessary.

But making a generic template available to all domains, and specifically new domainers, would really be a mistake and likely be more harmful than useful. Again .. the best thing you can do in these situations is to say as little as possible and allow the other side to make as many mistakes as possible.

Again .. every domain is unique .. and every contact is unique .. there certainly is no "standard" situation .. so it's definitely best policy to give the basic advice of being as cautious as possible.

Silentptnr said:

I don't think I could play dumb if I received a communication requesting I give up my domain or face a udrp. I think I would be firm.

Click to expand...

Again .. that's fine .. you and @Mister Funsky both very likely have a VASTLY better grasp and understanding of trademarks and UDRPs than the average domainer. Enough that you can probably tell what's a bluff and what's not in the very first email sent ... and even more likely that the domains you've acquired are 100% TM safe to begin with so indeed all cases you're faced with are clear cut.

Trust me .. there's nothing I'd rather do than put someone using unethical intimidation tactics in their place ... but that is not good advice to be giving beginners .. particularly those unfamiliar with trademarks and the UDRP process.

For those people the best advice is to give as little ammunition to the opposing side as possible while collecting as much for yourself as possible. Then go get yourself some help and/or inform yourself.

DanSanchez said:

Intimidation, legal or not, happens daily in the domain industry. I am an avid defender of private property and individual responsibility, personally, this is one of the most disgusting acts an individual can undertake to try to appropriate a domain name.

Now that I work at Epik, I am often tasked with answering emails from foolish individuals who purposely or not, try to misconstrue UDRP/Trademark rights try to intimidate the registrar into handing over a certain domain. This means they have already tried to contact the owner of the domain and they have failed, but it's not always the case.

In this particular instance, the individual attached a 2013 company registration from Turkey! The domain was owned by a client since 2009. The claimant is in textile and serves a very small local audience. Not only that, but the domain in question here has a .com.tr counterpart, which they recently registered in December 2019.

Here is the email he sent me directly:

During my research, I discovered they were going to rebrand to the (shorter) name they recently registered and felt entitled enough to steal the .com by coercion and intimidation.

Let's learn from each other to proactively protect our assets. Domains are unique, powerful, and valuable business tools. I am happy to share what my process is for establishing an appropriate response to help you fight this constant battle.

Share your recent experiences of fraudulent attempts to separate you from your rightful property.

Some relevant questions:

• How can we establish a standard operating procedure for aggressive defense of digital assets?
• How can the community come together to learn from each other?
• How can we establish legal rights to our property when someone (unscrupulous or not) comes demanding our property by force and coercion?

Warning: I am not an attorney.

Click to expand...

recommended reading:

https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Through-Intimidation-Robert-Ringer/dp/0449207862

lock said:

I had bikers call me a few times to tell me Jellywresting is theirs even turned up at a wrestling show. That particular show was attended by load of male wrestlers in audience. When they noticed I was getting leaned on they intervened and never had problem again. I registered the name first only got hassled when it got popular.

Click to expand...

yeah I had bikers too
but you know what
I gave them the domain ...
it was worthess anyway

pooky said:

In response an inquiry (by a broker on behalf of someone) for a domain that I had not listed for sale, I quoted an asking price of $10k. I got a reply that it's beyond the client's budget. So far so good. But the broker added this work of art:

Fortunately for you though, I have convinced them that this is still worth discussing to see if we can find some agreeable terms.

That stated, I am proposing to you the following hopefully reasonable offer that will make you a quick and decent profit as well as satisfy my client:

1. Client will reimburse you for upfront costs of holding the domain from 2014-2021: $91.00 USD (using namecheap's pricing and rounded up to $13.00 USD per year)
2. Client will pay for the escrow at escrow.com: $12.19-$23.63 USD (depending on settle method)
3. Client will provide a profit for you: $250.00 USD
4. This brings the total to $353.19-$364.63 USD, but to cover the spread of the escrow costs, and for your time spent, they added an additional amount to bring the amount they are willing to offer you $375.00 USD in totality.
5. In summary, the total to you: $375.00 USD

Seeing that we were far apart, I rejected the offer and also informed him that my 10k ask was rendered null and void by his counter-offer, and that my asking price would probably go up in the future. Apparently this was a hostile move according to the broker and he informed me that he would inform his client about my "hostility".

I told the moron not to contact me again.

Click to expand...

my answer is
"the value to us is much higher"

DanSanchez said:

Intimidation, legal or not, happens daily in the domain industry. I am an avid defender of private property and individual responsibility, personally, this is one of the most disgusting acts an individual can undertake to try to appropriate a domain name.

Now that I work at Epik, I am often tasked with answering emails from foolish individuals who purposely or not, try to misconstrue UDRP/Trademark rights try to intimidate the registrar into handing over a certain domain. This means they have already tried to contact the owner of the domain and they have failed, but it's not always the case.

In this particular instance, the individual attached a 2013 company registration from Turkey! The domain was owned by a client since 2009. The claimant is in textile and serves a very small local audience. Not only that, but the domain in question here has a .com.tr counterpart, which they recently registered in December 2019.

Here is the email he sent me directly:

During my research, I discovered they were going to rebrand to the (shorter) name they recently registered and felt entitled enough to steal the .com by coercion and intimidation.

Let's learn from each other to proactively protect our assets. Domains are unique, powerful, and valuable business tools. I am happy to share what my process is for establishing an appropriate response to help you fight this constant battle.

Share your recent experiences of fraudulent attempts to separate you from your rightful property.

Some relevant questions:

• How can we establish a standard operating procedure for aggressive defense of digital assets?
• How can the community come together to learn from each other?
• How can we establish legal rights to our property when someone (unscrupulous or not) comes demanding our property by force and coercion?

Warning: I am not an attorney.

Click to expand...

Dan...i learned a long time ago that "intimidation" is a business tactic used by some of your less savory characters. Robert Winger authored "Winning through Intimidation" in 1973, and a former partner of mine made it required reading for his sales staff soon after our partnership split in 75/76.

My former partner even used the tactics learned in Winger's book against me, and was able to "intimidate" one of my better clients into giving him their business. Fortunately I was later able to win the client back because winning business via "intimidation" doesn't usually last long. Winger also wrote "Million Dollar Habits", and despite the tactics he teaches, I would recommend reading his books in order to recognize what some (not all) of your competition is up to.

Similar to previous commentators on this thread, when this situation happens (as it does often,) I respond with a simple "no thank you" coupled with a few questions to get as much information as possible as their statements will almost always support your position should you need to show evidence of the other party's bad behavior.

Ategy said:

100% NO !!! Sorry for being so loud and blunt guys .. lol .. particularly since I know your intentions are obviously to be helpful to others. But the #1 weapon domainers have against unethical and immoral lawyers and "apparent" trademark owners is to pretend to be stupid and string them along and let them continue to make false statements and mistakes. The more mistakes they make the better. Like in @pooky's case the person used the word "profit". Just by the very fact they used that word legally opens the door to now allow @pooky to make future counter offers, whereas if they used the words "compensation for your time" any counter-offer by Pooky could have been used against him depending on how the initial contact was worded.

My advice is to never show what you know and always be as vague as possible. The dumber they think you are, the more aggressive they will be and the more likely they will be to do/say something that will later go to prove their bad faith. Even go so far as to ask seemingly stupid questions about why they think they have rights to the domain etc etc. The less you say and the more they say means that if it actually does end up in legal proceedings, you have an arsenal of proof and evidence supporting you and proving the bad faith of the complainant.

So the bottom line is NEVER EVER "educate" or "inform" potential complainants, and instead ALWAYS string them along and allow them to make mistakes.

Eventually when you have enough proof of bad faith you can use that to shut things down if you are 100% sure. But until you are 100% sure of your case, say as little as possible and get them to say too much.

Most importantly .. UDRPs are supposed to be standard and have rules .. but there are indeed many grey-zone cases where you can never be 100%. Or even worse .. those same grey-zone case where one panellist would vote one way and a different panellist would vote another way (even with the same information/evidence) .. so it's for that reason why it's always ideal to get as much supporting evidence in your favour as possible. In borderline cases unethical behaviour could make the difference if you can prove it. Which means whenever possible, NEVER giving them information or help and ALWAYS try to get them to say as much as possible.

In fact, it wouldn't even be a bad idea to pretend to be stupid on the subject of trademarks and ask them why they think they are legally entitled to the domain .. because if they come back with reasons that are not actual rules/laws that would go some ways to prove their bad faith.

Also .. never ever even use the term UDRP unless they use it first. NEVER! lol

Click to expand...

I agree partially, each case is so unique in it's circumstances that the template would have to as unique as the situation. There is definitely no "template" in the common sense of the word. I think the benefit is mostly educational and in the best case scenario, a pre-defense build up in case of actual proceedings.

Perhaps we should develop a standard response process or system that would follow your line of thinking first. Then escalate with a fact-based deterrent against further intimidation.

Ategy said:

100% NO !!! Sorry for being so loud and blunt guys .. lol .. particularly since I know your intentions are obviously to be helpful to others. But the #1 weapon domainers have against unethical and immoral lawyers and "apparent" trademark owners is to pretend to be stupid and string them along and let them continue to make false statements and mistakes. The more mistakes they make the better. Like in @pooky's case the person used the word "profit". Just by the very fact they used that word legally opens the door to now allow @pooky to make future counter offers, whereas if they used the words "compensation for your time" any counter-offer by Pooky could have been used against him depending on how the initial contact was worded.

My advice is to never show what you know and always be as vague as possible. The dumber they think you are, the more aggressive they will be and the more likely they will be to do/say something that will later go to prove their bad faith. Even go so far as to ask seemingly stupid questions about why they think they have rights to the domain etc etc. The less you say and the more they say means that if it actually does end up in legal proceedings, you have an arsenal of proof and evidence supporting you and proving the bad faith of the complainant.

So the bottom line is NEVER EVER "educate" or "inform" potential complainants, and instead ALWAYS string them along and allow them to make mistakes.

Eventually when you have enough proof of bad faith you can use that to shut things down if you are 100% sure. But until you are 100% sure of your case, say as little as possible and get them to say too much.

Most importantly .. UDRPs are supposed to be standard and have rules .. but there are indeed many grey-zone cases where you can never be 100%. Or even worse .. those same grey-zone case where one panellist would vote one way and a different panellist would vote another way (even with the same information/evidence) .. so it's for that reason why it's always ideal to get as much supporting evidence in your favour as possible. In borderline cases unethical behaviour could make the difference if you can prove it. Which means whenever possible, NEVER giving them information or help and ALWAYS try to get them to say as much as possible.

In fact, it wouldn't even be a bad idea to pretend to be stupid on the subject of trademarks and ask them why they think they are legally entitled to the domain .. because if they come back with reasons that are not actual rules/laws that would go some ways to prove their bad faith.

Also .. never ever even use the term UDRP unless they use it first. NEVER! lol

Click to expand...

100% agreed.

any detail you give away w/o them asking
gives them more grip

Ategy said:

100% NO !!! Sorry for being so loud and blunt guys .. lol .. particularly since I know your intentions are obviously to be helpful to others. But the #1 weapon domainers have against unethical and immoral lawyers and "apparent" trademark owners is to pretend to be stupid and string them along and let them continue to make false statements and mistakes. The more mistakes they make the better. Like in @pooky's case the person used the word "profit". Just by the very fact they used that word legally opens the door to now allow @pooky to make future counter offers, whereas if they used the words "compensation for your time" any counter-offer by Pooky could have been used against him depending on how the initial contact was worded.

My advice is to never show what you know and always be as vague as possible. The dumber they think you are, the more aggressive they will be and the more likely they will be to do/say something that will later go to prove their bad faith. Even go so far as to ask seemingly stupid questions about why they think they have rights to the domain etc etc. The less you say and the more they say means that if it actually does end up in legal proceedings, you have an arsenal of proof and evidence supporting you and proving the bad faith of the complainant.

So the bottom line is NEVER EVER "educate" or "inform" potential complainants, and instead ALWAYS string them along and allow them to make mistakes.

Eventually when you have enough proof of bad faith you can use that to shut things down if you are 100% sure. But until you are 100% sure of your case, say as little as possible and get them to say too much.

Most importantly .. UDRPs are supposed to be standard and have rules .. but there are indeed many grey-zone cases where you can never be 100%. Or even worse .. those same grey-zone case where one panellist would vote one way and a different panellist would vote another way (even with the same information/evidence) .. so it's for that reason why it's always ideal to get as much supporting evidence in your favour as possible. In borderline cases unethical behaviour could make the difference if you can prove it. Which means whenever possible, NEVER giving them information or help and ALWAYS try to get them to say as much as possible.

In fact, it wouldn't even be a bad idea to pretend to be stupid on the subject of trademarks and ask them why they think they are legally entitled to the domain .. because if they come back with reasons that are not actual rules/laws that would go some ways to prove their bad faith.

Also .. never ever even use the term UDRP unless they use it first. NEVER! lol

Click to expand...

Correct, that's the right way to deal with this.
If you try to educate your enemy, you will have lost half the war already.
A polite and firm "no thank you" sounds like the best response.

GoWebnames.com said:

Correct, that's the right way to deal with this.
If you try to educate your enemy, you will have lost half the war already.
A polite and firm "no thank you" sounds like the best response.

Click to expand...

I don't know. I have fought off several meritless claims by pushing back.

It is not about educating the other party as much as showing them you are not a push over.
Often times these people are just looking for the low hanging fruit.

It does help though if you have experience and know what you are talking about, and can address the issues in a measured manner.

Brad

HallOfShame.com is a good site to mention to them.

Thanks for sharing Dan, and all sharing your ideas.

I like the idea of preparing something as a template,but simply I would say "no thank you"

or

if they are Turkish (I am Turkish,too) , we can reply with this video
(as they are dreaming to receive the domain after that email :D )


hayaller = dreams
hayatlar = life(s) , reality :D

candyengineer said:

Thanks for sharing Dan, and all sharing your ideas.

I like the idea of preparing something as a template,but simply I would say "no thank you"

or

if they are Turkish (I am Turkish,too) , we can reply with this video
(as they are dreaming to receive the domain after that email :D )

hayaller = dreams
hayatlar = life(s) , reality :D

Click to expand...

...and THAT is how you 'Talk Turkey' to these jesters. Pun intended!

There's not a one size fits all reply letter that can be presented, but I like the idea Sanchez has brought forward. We could have at least a base letter that may be modified to our situation. Some letters may require a "play dumb" approach as Ategy suggested, others deserve nothing more than to be kicked in the ass. Any reply though, whether it be a deserving ass-kicking or I'm just a dumb dude who registered this name because I like it, should be polite and professional. There are ways to formulate responses that can accommodate either avenue.

Truth of the matter is, a domain name at the outset is available to be registered by anyone on earth. Claiming property after the fact is preposterous and belligerent, for the most part. These people that come at us believe for what ever reason they have some sort of right on a human-readable IP address. They do not. A company or business is what you've made at it in the very moment you've made it, not some invisible claim that they believe everyone should know about. Really, it's absurd the sense of entitlement some folks have.

In 2014, I registered a single-character letter, "O" in an absolutely terrible new extension. The crappiest of the crap of extensions. The day after, I got a letter from someone, clearly thinking the fact that they had a trademark on a LETTER gave them rights over anyone else. I played dumb, not only because it was my first date, but also because I felt it was the best way to dissolve the situation. Besides, the mere act of registering a generic domain, does not equate TM infringement, and I knew this.

Here's the goombah from the "I have a TM, therefore I own everything" club, and my simple response and then his:



He decided to let it go, thank goodness. Whatever would I have done had he pursued it. Seriously though, after reading about Monster's loss, kindly posted by our Silentptnr, that has got to be the most pathetic example of someone taking advantage of an obviously corrupt WIPO representative for their own entitled gains. Companies that go this route, eg. Ganeden Biotech should be shunned by the entire business community imo for taking claim to something that was already legitimately claimed by someone else. Wishful thinking, obviously, but being buried in history will not change the fact that it happened. This makes WIPO look like a legalized form of thievery. Ugh!

Hello, to add a comment, to the example letter' offered payment specification as

Ategy said:

Although his big mistake (where you can tell he's not a professional) was using the word "profit" instead of "compensation for your time".

Click to expand...

-to that, there is actually a domain profit per year, and that is the minimum cost of CPC advertising for the specific keyword/keywords in total, and that is somewhat acceptable criteria, maybe not generally considered as the factor but exists.
And after others mentioned in this thread, that sumoed by O.P. that domainers here as support would rather need principles than a template letters, I would suggest occassionally checking online Trade Mark database records US / UK / EU(DE) or other TM registrar when domain pretend to the niches from some of the globally regulated locally stringent markets interests.
Also as there are multitude of TM and Reg.Business names across the records with such names meeting widest possible extend(aside of fully imaginative brandables), eventually that would restrict formal communication if taken without objective estimate aside bureaucracy in reality, yet it is necessary for most to educate further to be able to prove some of their domain ownership rights/prerogative and some criteria are
- date of TM/BN vs. DN //who preceded
- business type / industry market vs. domain audience, intent for use // same or not
Etc. members here could add on.
Regards

The need for a polite and professional attitude goes both ways.

Sometimes the inquiries are condescending, unnecessarily intimidating or start with such appallingly low offers that they end the negotiation before it can start.

about 2004 or so they use to yell at me on phone
"it's MY domain"

I used to ask them "why the heck are you calling me if its YOUR domain?"

Just send this...