IT.COM

information Brent Oxley Loses Access to Create.com, Plus Millions of Dollars Worth of His Domains

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch
Brent Oxley, the founder of HostGator, has been accruing a portfolio of ultra-premium domain names since he sold his hosting company for close to $300 million in 2013.

With purchases such as Give.com for $500,000, Broker.com for $375,000, and Texas.com for $1,007,500, Oxley has spent millions of dollars over the past few years accumulating this collection. According to his website, the portfolio is worth more than $25 million.

Oxley has now, however, lost access to a proportion of his portfolio

Read the full report on my blog
 
60
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Exactly. Wrong lawyers.

Clearly, GoDaddy has locked Brent's domain names not because Puneet has sued Brent but because Puneet has sued GoDaddy India.

GoDaddy India needs a judge's court order to tell them to release the locks they've put in place because GoDaddy India was sued by Puneet. Really, Brent doesn't have much to do with GoDaddy India's behavior here. The locks are all because GoDaddy India has been sued, not Brent.
You nailed it.
 
Last edited:
5
•••
I think we can come to theories, agendas and relationship of Brent with this guy later.

Our first and form priority as investors should be to push Godaddy to do the right thing and give access to Brent for his domain names.

I have to say I'm sort of jealous that this guy gets to work with or for Brent & Sharjil while I keep outbounding my geos :xf.grin:

Yeah, I hear you. I've moved most of domains already. However, I will say that finding out whether there was another motive in this case, is critical in preventing this from occurring again. Was he targeted or was it purely coincidence that a somewhat controversial, right leaning, gun supporting, non-woke domain investor with millions of dollars worth of domains was targeted? I sure hope that's not the case. Perhaps GoDaddy simply has enforced their really shitty TOS on other (smaller) domain investors in similar cases that we're not privy to.
 
2
•••
A prostitute?
:xf.eek:

November 2018.

Puneet: just saw someone similar face n body in hotel the Lalit. I came here alone booked one suite from money which u sent sir. I am giving party to myself

Brent: Were in Mumbai for 2 more nights. What does giving self party mean? You having a few drinks? We’re about to go to dinner.

Puneet: Yes sir. I ordered bottle of red wine. I just want to feel 7 star environment and peace with myself. when U reach Delhi sir. Already so many days

Brent: I was confused on your story. Who is this girl you gave money to and paid for a room on? how did you meet her?

Puneet: Hi boss. I just got a number from internet and watsapp number. Then I messaged on that number asking for some girl available. They sent me 8 photos n I choose the most bad one. When I reached hotel , the one they told me to reach , she was already sitting there. Then I make payment and came back

So if this ends up going to Hollywood, which actress gets casted as the most bad one? 🍿
 
Last edited:
2
•••
Brent should complain or against GD in USA , then GD probably will defend themself in India when Puneet sue GD India , why GD decided to lock brent’s domain names that not registered with GD India , also not managed or hosted in India. Is it legal action or just a temporary protection with deadline limited ?
 
2
•••
Yeah, I hear you. I've moved most of domains already. However, I will say that finding out whether there was another motive in this case, is critical in preventing this from occurring again. Was he targeted or was it purely coincidence that a somewhat controversial, right leaning, gun supporting, non-woke domain investor with millions of dollars worth of domains was targeted? I sure hope that's not the case. Perhaps GoDaddy simply has enforced their really shitty TOS on other (smaller) domain investors in similar cases that we're not privy to.

As I said earlier, we can come to all of this some day later.

Our focus for now SHOULD only be on pushing Godaddy to do the right thing.

I can't see any reason why Godaddy can't do what Namecheap did besides them having an Indian presence which other registrars don't.
 
2
•••
Our focus for now SHOULD only be on pushing Godaddy to do the right thing.

I'm pretty sure this thread is contributing to that noble cause.
 
3
•••
I can't see any reason why Godaddy can't do what Namecheap did besides them having an Indian presence which other registrars don't.

I agree, which is precisely why I even bothered to question whether another motive was involved. Also, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd love for a lawyer to chime in here, because a company merely having a presence or legal entity in India should not justify why an American based company is able to lock down an American owned domain portfolio as a result of lawsuit stemming from India.
 
Last edited:
4
•••
I can't see any reason why Godaddy can't do what Namecheap did besides them having an Indian presence which other registrars don't.

The difference might be centered in GoDaddy having unwound a $30,000 charge from Mr. Oxley's credit card for the renewal of Mr. Agarwals personal domains.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1785233/gov.uscourts.txsd.1785233.1.0.pdf

15. From December 2018 through February 2019, Agarwal, now out of money and desperate not to return to his home in Alwar, continued to contact Oxley, requesting a monthly salary for his living expenses in Delhi as well as renewal payments for his domain names in exchange for attempting to broker deals for the purchase and sale of Oxley’s domains. Oxley refused.

16. Thereafter, beginning with messages sent to Oxley in late February 2019, Agarwal’s rhetoric escalated, blaming Oxley for failures to pay his rent and renew domain names, suggesting that all of his renewal fees could be paid if only Oxley would provide him with the CVV to Oxley’s credit card which Agarwal had previously told Oxley that he had deleted from his account, and claiming that he would have to have his father sell his factory in order to pay Oxley back for the Oxley Commission.

17. In furtherance of this rhetoric, on July 9, 2019, Agarwal sent a series of messages via Facebook Messenger to Oxley, blaming Oxley for the loss of Agarwal’s domain names due to Oxley’s refusal to advance money to Agarwal not in connection with an earned commission. In the same series of messages, Agarwal also threatened to file a lawsuit against Oxley to “show [Oxley] how it feels when [his] domain will be in [his] account but [he] will not be the owner.” A true and correct copy of this series of messages is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

18. On or around September 13, 2019, Oxley became aware that Agarwal, without authorization, had charged Oxley’s credit card for renewal of Agarwal’s personal web domains in the amount of $30,000 and contacted GoDaddy who unwound the transaction.

19. As a result of Oxley’s refusal to allow Agarwal to charge $30,000 to his credit card for renewal of Agarwal’s personal domains and to advance money to Agarwal not in connection with an earned commission, Agarwal followed through on his threat from July 9, 2019 and filed suit against Oxley and an Indian affiliate of GoDaddy, GoDaddy India Web Services, Pvt. Ltd. (“GoDaddy India”), in the Alwar District Court in India, Filing No. 858/2019, on November 15, 2019 (the “Indian Litigation”), alleging, without any evidence, that Oxley and Agarwal had entered into an exclusive brokerage agreement pursuant to which Agarwal was owed a commission upon Oxley’s purchase and sale of any domain name and that GoDaddy India was liable for allowing these transactions to occur without Agarwal receiving his commission.

20. However, instead of attempting to obtain jurisdiction over Oxley in India and resolve any issues in court, Agarwal filed the Indian Litigation, naming GoDaddy India as a defendant, solely to induce GoDaddy to lock Oxley’s registered domains, depriving Oxley of the ability to sell or renew any of those domains. A true and correct copy of emails dated April 1, 2020 from Agarwal to Oxley evidencing Agarwal’s threat to employ a similar strategy in filing litigation against GoDaddy in order to lock domains owned by Oxley which are not included in the Indian Litigation is attached hereto as Exhibit 3

21. In fact, Oxley did not become aware of the Indian Litigation until he contacted GoDaddy by e-mail after logging on to his GoDaddy account on January 9, 2020 to find several of his domains locked. A true and correct copy of this e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

22. To this date, more than seven months after the filing of the Indian Litigation, Agarwal has never attempted service on Oxley. A true and correct copy of the case status for the Indian Litigation as of July 7, 2020 is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.

23. Despite no order or injunction ever being issued by the Court presiding over the Indian Litigation, as a direct result of its filing, GoDaddy, pursuant to Section 14 of the Universal Terms of Service Agreement between GoDaddy and Oxley1 , locked the following domain names owned by Oxley...
 
Last edited:
2
•••
It's pretty clear that either Judge or Brent's lawyer don't understand exactly how thing work with digital assets and especially domains...also, the judge can't understand why is godaddy involved and I'm pretyy sure than neither godaddy doesn't know why they are involved, exclding their own stupidity. I can bet that Rob from epik, dynadot, namesilo and namecheap guys had a big party last night, knowing that they could not harm godaddy all of them together as bad as godaddy's legal department in this case.
Maybe should help Lisa, from godaddy legal department by send her a few thousands emails from namepros members here, so that she should understand that she can't lock a domain because of a complain, she needs to wait for a court order at the end of the case. Looks like @Paul Nicks and @Joe Styler can't deliver deliver her a simple message like this.
 
2
•••
The difference might be centered in GoDaddy having unwound a $30,000 charged to Mr. Oxley's credit card for the renewal of Mr. Agarwals personal domains.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1785233/gov.uscourts.txsd.1785233.1.0.pdf

Yet Godaddy is choosing to cause additional harm to the victim by locking down his domans, including domains that were never associated with this case. It's utterly bizarre.

On a completely different note, where are all the other well known (larger) investors on this topic? I've seen one or two over at the thedomains.com, but I presume we'll soon be seeing Elliot's take over at domaininvesting.com? Or do most larger investors wish to remain "neutral" on this issue for varying reasons and/or perks/relationships they may currently have with GoDaddy?
 
Last edited:
2
•••
The difference might be centered in GoDaddy having unwound a $30,000 charged to Mr. Oxley's credit card for the renewal of Mr. Agarwals personal domains.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1785233/gov.uscourts.txsd.1785233.1.0.pdf

I think in 17, where Mr Agarwal threatens Oxley about how he will feel when the domain will be in his account but he will not be the owner SHOULD be enough for courts to mark this as frivolous.

Did Mr Agarwal have access to Oxley's CC due to previous transactions?
 
1
•••
The difference might be centered in GoDaddy having unwound a $30,000 charged to Mr. Oxley's credit card for the renewal of Mr. Agarwals personal domains.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1785233/gov.uscourts.txsd.1785233.1.0.pdf
It could be, but they were not thinking that this will become pubic sooner or later and that nobody will feel safe, knowing that they can do the same every time they want? It could be a way for them to stop the bleeding, just ask some guys like Puneet to fill a few complains about a few thousands domains each and they will lock them for unlimited time, even auction them at one point to make some extra revenue in bad times.
 
1
•••
I think in 17, where Mr Agarwal threatens Oxley about how he will feel when the domain will be in his account but he will not be the owner SHOULD be enough for courts to mark this as frivolous.

Did Mr Agarwal have access to Oxley's CC due to previous transactions?
Probably he knows somebody at godaddy India, knowing exactly that he could lock his domains. Yes, it seems that he had his cc details, paying for renewals and some .in domains, but that doesn't give him the right to use the card for whatever he wants, without a explicit approval.
 
2
•••
Probably he knows somebody at godaddy India, knowing exactly that he could lock his domains. Yes, it seems that he had his cc details, paying for renewals and some .in domains, but that doesn't give him the right to use the card for whatever he wants, without a explicit approval.

Well, if he had access to Oxley's CC than it does establish some sort of relationship between him and Oxley.

These questions will and should be asked later though.

I also think he pulled it off with a lot of shrewdness, high chance domains would still be unlocked if he had filed a complain against Oxley and not Godaddy India.
 
1
•••
Instead, I'm paying lawyers in India to make sure he serves prison time for both extortion and fraud.


good move.
I support that.


At one point, I even offered Godaddy full indemnification from the "dispute" if they unlocked my names. This is off the table now, but I can't for the life of me figure out why'd they turn this down and continue to keep my names locked without any proof or court order.

that basically was the last time
I considered having domains with godaddy

they have no excuses to further lock the domains
 
1
•••
The only way I can see Oxley getting a quick relief is hiring competent lawyers and getting an injunction against Godaddy US.

I believe a court ruling against GD US should surpass ruling over one of its subsidiary.
 
1
•••
I think in 17, where Mr Agarwal threatens Oxley about how he will feel when the domain will be in his account but he will not be the owner SHOULD be enough for courts to mark this as frivolous.

Frivolous to Mr. Oxley, sure. But it appears Mr. Oxley was requesting to force GoDaddy to unlock the domains, which it appears GoDaddy had been <served? or ordered?> to lock due to <some ruling?> or <to GoDaddy India being served despite Oxley not being served?> in India with GoDaddy India named as a defendant?

Thus, GoDaddy had to require Mr. Oxley to obtain a court order demanding the domains be unlocked? And the Texas judge wasn't comfortable ruling Oxley v. GoDaddy, when the case the judge was presiding over was Oxley V Argawal. Seeing how, if Agawal wins in India, and somehow is awarded the locked domains instead of a monetary judgement, then GoDaddy is required to safeguard the domains to be able to <push? or hold as collateral?> to Mr. Argawal, should he succeed in Indian court?

Did Mr Agarwal have access to Oxley's CC due to previous transactions?

In 16.

16. Thereafter, beginning with messages sent to Oxley in late February 2019, Agarwal’s rhetoric escalated, blaming Oxley for failures to pay his rent and renew domain names, suggesting that all of his renewal fees could be paid if only Oxley would provide him with the CVV to Oxley’s credit card which Agarwal had previously told Oxley that he had deleted from his account, and claiming that he would have to have his father sell his factory in order to pay Oxley back for the Oxley Commission.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Frivolous to Mr. Oxley, sure. But it appears Mr. Oxley was requesting to force GoDaddy to unlock the domains, which it appears GoDaddy had been ordered to lock due to <some ruling? or to GoDaddy India being served despite Oxley not being served?> in India with GoDaddy India names as a defendant?

Thus, GoDaddy had to require Mr. Oxley to obtain a court order demanding the domains be unlocked? And the Texas judge wasn't comfortable ruling Oxley v. GoDaddy, when the case the judge was presiding over was Oxley V Argawal. Seeing how, if Agawal wins in India, and somehow is awarded the locked domains instead of a monetary judgement, then GoDaddy is required to safeguard the domains?



In 16.

Maybe Oxley never got the notice because he isn't a defendent as the case by Mr Agarwal is against Godaddy India.

I hope this works out for Brent but it seems like a big mess that keeps growing bigger.
 
2
•••
Well, if he had access to Oxley's CC than it does establish some sort of relationship between him and Oxley.

These questions will and should be asked later though.

I also think he pulled it off with a lot of shrewdness, high chance domains would still be unlocked if he had filed a complain against Oxley and not Godaddy India.
I said it before, he can ask whatever he wants, he can settle this between them through a commercial case. My problem is with godaddy. So, if tomorrow I have a disagreement with a memeber here and he make's a complain in court that he helped me get those domains, without any proof and send's the complain number to godaddy, they will lock my domains just because they received a complain? This is absurd and godaddy made the worst decision here. I can bet that the guys doing the scams with high offers and appraisal scams from Japan and Israel will stop doing that and start doing thousands of complains for thousands of domains, because they know they have a higher chance of success, because of godaddy's incompetence.
 
5
•••
I
Frivolous to Mr. Oxley, sure. But it appears Mr. Oxley was requesting to force GoDaddy to unlock the domains, which it appears GoDaddy had been <served? or ordered?> to lock due to <some ruling?> or <to GoDaddy India being served despite Oxley not being served?> in India with GoDaddy India named as a defendant?

Thus, GoDaddy had to require Mr. Oxley to obtain a court order demanding the domains be unlocked? And the Texas judge wasn't comfortable ruling Oxley v. GoDaddy, when the case the judge was presiding over was Oxley V Argawal. Seeing how, if Agawal wins in India, and somehow is awarded the locked domains instead of a monetary judgement, then GoDaddy is required to safeguard the domains to be able to <push? or hold as collateral?> to Mr. Argawal, should he succeed in Indian court?



In 16.
I don't think that godaddy was served, because when Brent was asking if there is a court order to lock the domains, they replied that they don't really need a court order, a complain will be enough. Also, in my country no judge will issue a seize of anything at the beginning of the case, it's not normal and I don't think that the judge has the legal ground to do that. He can't do that only after everything is done.It's like I will sue Amazon that they own me $1 or $1 million and in the minute I make the complain, the judge will seize amazon properties for years to cover everything, it's not legal in Europe and I'm pretty sure it's not legal anywhere else.
 
5
•••
1
•••
I don't think that godaddy was served, because when Brent was asking if there is a court order to lock the domains, they replied that they don't really need a court order, a complain will be enough.

From the India court order:

https://www.jamesnames.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Agarwal-vs-GoDaddy-Oxley.pdf

On date 15/11/2019, complainant advocate was present. Examined employee report. Examined documents. Suit entry made in register. Respondents to be served notice and documents to be submitted on 30/11/2019.

@boker -- If you don't think GoDaddy India was served, would you agree that it's easier and/or more affordable for Mr. Agrawal to serve GoDaddy India in India than it would be for Mr. Agrawal to serve Mr. Oxley in Texas?

upload_2021-3-8_2-28-38.png


Further, if the intended result was to cast maximum damage on Mr. Oxley, and hope to force him into submission, then what true benefit does Mr. Agarwal have to serve Mr. Oxley, so long as the domains remain locked as long as GoDaddy remains a party to the suit, which will remain pending, and Mr. Oxleys domains locked, until Mr. Oxley is served, and the case is able to process.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
From the India court order:

https://www.jamesnames.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Agarwal-vs-GoDaddy-Oxley.pdf



@boker -- If you don't think GoDaddy India was served, would you agree that it's easier and/or more affordable for Mr. Agrawal to serve GoDaddy India in India than it would be for Mr. Agrawal to serve Mr. Oxley in Texas?

Show attachment 184534

Further, if the intended result was to cast maximum damage on Mr. Oxley, and hope to force him into submission, then what true benefit does Mr. Agarwal have to serve Mr. Oxley, so long as the domains remain locked as long as GoDaddy remains a party to the suit, which will remain pending, and Mr. Oxleys domains locked, until Mr. Oxley is served, and the case is able to process.
Of course it will have been easier to serve godaddy India, but the case is against both, godaddy India and Brent, so he needs to serve both of them and to do that, he needs an Hague Certificate and if it took almost a year for Brent to receive one and he spent a few thousands in the mentime I don;t think that Puneet could have done it in days and weeks and I don't think that his intention was to do that. His intention was to start the case, make the complain hopping that godaddy, for some reson will lock the domains and he can blackmail Brent until he manage to unlock them. Again, looks like godaddy is acting in bad faith or through incompetence, either way they look like a second hand company right now because of this.
 
8
•••
The respondent's repsonse in the US suit is crazy.
Since he replied there, atleast, he can't say he is not aware of it.

Then, in his response, he says "Myself do not fall under the jurisdiction of United States court".
Followed by a notice of setting. But it's not finished. Brent replied with 3 status report.
The judge should now respond to that? Or did he already and courtlistener is not up-to-date?

https://ia803203.us.archive.org/33/...sd.1785233/gov.uscourts.txsd.1785233.23.0.pdf

If GD doesn't move, Could Brent sue GD in the US ?
 
6
•••
The respondent's repsonse in the US suit is crazy.
Since he replied there, atleast, he can't say he is not aware of it.

Then, in his response, he says "Myself do not fall under the jurisdiction of United States court".
Followed by a notice of setting. But it's not finished. Brent replied with 3 status report.
The judge should now respond to that? Or did he already and courtlistener is not up-to-date?

https://ia803203.us.archive.org/33/...sd.1785233/gov.uscourts.txsd.1785233.23.0.pdf

If GD doesn't move, Could Brent sue GD in the US ?

Funny how he thinks he doesn't fall under US court jurisdiction but Brent falls under Indian court jurisdiction.
 
12
•••
Back