NameSilo

BC30.com UDRP lost by Namepros Member

Labeled as UDRP in Legal Discussion, started by Silentptnr, Feb 20, 2020

Replies:
241
Views:
30,949

  1. Rob Monster

    Rob Monster CEO, Epik Epik.com Staff PRO VIP

    Posts:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    17,973
    It would be mainly in the court of public opinion.

    That said, if a capable domain lawyer wants to work with us on contingency to challenge the outcome in a civil proceeding, we'll happily let them bank 100% of the proceeds.
     
    The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
  2. Silentptnr

    Silentptnr Top Contributor VIP

    Posts:
    16,428
    Likes Received:
    46,984
    I support your position on this Rob.

    Ironic the domain was bc and the decision was bc as in bull crap. :)
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
  3. Ja Kai

    Ja Kai Account Closed (Requested)

    Posts:
    276
    Likes Received:
    437
    @Rob Monster - I do wish, that folks like you, who have deep pockets, would mount a defense with an attorney and three panelists, no matter how inconsequential you see the loss to be. It is the principal.

    Many of us have to let things go because we are not able to pay the cost of attorneys and three panelists.

    To all the Millionaire domainers (yes, Rob, that includes you) - take one for the team and defend these frivolous actions.
     
  4. Rob Monster

    Rob Monster CEO, Epik Epik.com Staff PRO VIP

    Posts:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    17,973
    For me, it is more about opportunity cost. ICYMI, we get a lot done in a day. However, as with the VisitQatar.com case, you can hire a good lawyer and still lose.

    We do also hold the WIPO institution to a standard of due process and justice in their capacity as "small claims court for domains".

    I think DNProtect.com will be a very good solution for these types of cases where the cost of defense is spread across many domains.

    So, my solution is to deal with the root issues:

    - Challenge WIPO's right to exist in the court of public opinion -- this is in progress and I appreciate the support to keep this thread prominent.

    - Develop and launch DNProtect as an insurance product for domain risk management and legal defense -- this is already live with @bhartzer as product manager.

    - Provide retail customers with better tools for finding and engaging with verified domain owners, e.g. WHOQ.com (beta), DNAdvocate.com (planning stage for domain dispute resolution).

    Lose the battle. Win the war.
     
  5. HappyW

    HappyW Collector VIP

    Posts:
    1,030
    Likes Received:
    489
    '– whether the domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to a famous or distinctive trademark; ' is very important.
    I think this is the key factor for @Rob Monster to lose UDRP. This can be treated from the perspective of registered trademarks: the application of a new name similar to a well-known global trademark on a rare product is obviously rejected.because it "is easy to confuse consumers." Similarly, WIPO preconceived and made a final ruling from the consumer's point of view that Domain “confused” the complainant's famous trademark. IMO

    But I don't understand what kind of motivation inspired the complainant to do such a high-risk thing just to pay an extra $ 600. I think the complainant's contribution to obtain BC30.com is much higher than $4800.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
  6. pooky

    pooky Established Member

    Posts:
    263
    Likes Received:
    521
    ...a buyer with no trademark connection to the domain name came along offering to meet the Respondent’s own asking price, why would the Respondent not happily accept such payment but instead raise its asking price.) This further supports a finding of bad faith registration...

    This is quite chilling. Some third party is going to decide what price you should have "happily" accepted as a domain owner.
     
  7. DanSanchez

    DanSanchez 48hr.com Bitcoin powered auctions Epik.com Staff VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    1,534
    Likes Received:
    3,445
    Unbelievable, WIPO process is disgusting! The scariest thing about the panelist is his willingness to quote a random Godaddy valuation as a pretense for overvaluation and thus granting the transfer. I bet he only uses Godaddy when the price suits his argument.

    One of the main reasons I NEVER quote prices until I know the person's willingness to engage in a voluntary and forceless negotiation is this sentence...

    "showing an intent on the Respondent’s part to take unfair advantage of the Complainant" - That is not a criminal act like cybersquatting, it equates to the argument of "price gauging" in a market with increased demand and shortened supply. You can hear the tone deaf lawyer just siding with the "victim" while depriving a rightful owner of his property.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
  8. nothere

    nothere Established Member ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    421
    Likes Received:
    242
    If this was a real court court case it should have been denied just based on "(iii) the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith." but this is a joke. Having read the decision, they used the fact that a few other names had been lost to UDRP, and that makes almost any other case against that person much easier to win. In other words: watch out domainers.Price the trademarked names at a price that is not beneficial for trademark holders to submit it to UDRP.

    Almost every word is trademarked, somewhere. And if you lose a few (as little as two, according to them) cases, bad faith is assumed for domainers.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
  9. AIS01

    AIS01 domainer VIP

    Posts:
    3,596
    Likes Received:
    6,558
    GANEDENBC30 filled the trademark BC30 . LOL :ROFL:what a bad trademark rules.


    I'm just wondering how this trademark filled. Trademark rules need to be changed. so that anyone who registers a useless domain name with can field the one word trademark and make a udrp sued with that domain. and won the one word name.:xf.grin:

    Trademark rules need to be changed.

    in my opinion , who have the orginal holder of the name BC30.com, he/she can be filled the exact trademark. :)
     
  10. nothere

    nothere Established Member ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    421
    Likes Received:
    242
    Nope, very legitimate. Like saying Exxon D12 Oil for example. D12 in this case would also be a trademarked word.

    I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but they'll probably not listen to your opinions, as well argued as they may be. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_trademark_law#History
     
  11. AIS01

    AIS01 domainer VIP

    Posts:
    3,596
    Likes Received:
    6,558
    [QUOTE="but they'll probably not listen to your opinions, as well argued as they may be. [/QUOTE]

    true :)
     
  12. Rob Monster

    Rob Monster CEO, Epik Epik.com Staff PRO VIP

    Posts:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    17,973
    There is some coverage here:

    https://domaingang.com/domain-law/bc30-com-udrp-what-not-to-do-when-negotiating-a-domain-sale/

    Here is the problem with this case.

    When you get an offer from DomainAgents, it is a total black box,

    You get these emails with ZERO METADATA. It is not possible to know is the offer from the same person as a year ago, where they are from, what organization, etc. It is all black box:


    upload_2020-2-20_22-54-23.png

    At some point, a live person, in this case Eric, did engage:

    upload_2020-2-20_22-53-5.png

    I actually had no sense of whether I was dealing with one buyer or multiple buyers. To say there is a bad faith is to say that DomainAgents and Rob Monster were working in concert. Clearly not.

    Yes, the case is nonsense. And DomainAgents did not help at all.
     
  13. Rob Monster

    Rob Monster CEO, Epik Epik.com Staff PRO VIP

    Posts:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    17,973
    Here is our friendly UDRP Panelist:

    upload_2020-2-20_23-5-16.png

    https://www.kwm.com/en/au/people/john-swinson

    It is not the first time that he has underwhelmed me. Perhaps this is the panelist when you want to secure a bullshit outcome for your UDRP complaint.

    Who has further insight on Mr. Swinson?
     
  14. HappyW

    HappyW Collector VIP

    Posts:
    1,030
    Likes Received:
    489
    You are wise and experienced.;) I think this case raises our alarm: Excluding legal risks is far more important than sales.
     
  15. nothere

    nothere Established Member ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    421
    Likes Received:
    242
    DomainAgents is doing its role, you either accept the offer or come back with a counteroffer. Apparently the company thought that you'd keep increasing the counteroffer given their interest.

    As we know, a lot of names are trademarks and navigating them is a minefield. One mistake or a bad panelist and you lose the name. Suing in federal court is expensive and tricky, not to mention that large companies are used to lawsuits, average domainers are not.

    A person that has thousands of names probably has dozens if not hundreds of trademarks in them even if he didn't know. For so-so names offer a bin less than $5k, or whatever it costs them to file a UDRP and hope.
     
  16. timestamp

    timestamp Established Member

    Posts:
    354
    Likes Received:
    266
    Your asking price was $4200.
    They offered you $4200.
    But you wanted more? And you lost everything.
    I'm glad it happend. I'm glad it was reported.

    Now if you'll excuse me, I'll go check bible for stories with the word 'greed' in it.
     
  17. HappyW

    HappyW Collector VIP

    Posts:
    1,030
    Likes Received:
    489
    In fact, this has nothing to do with greed. The buyer's behavior is also a proof of greed. If he is not the name greedy, he can cancel the purchase instead of submitting arbitration.

    The domain market should be determined by the seller rather than the buyer, and the buyer does not accept that the purchase plan can be completely cancelled. We need to oppose legal arbitration to help us make decisions.

    It is time for the ICANN to ask the court to set standards for accepting buyer arbitration, rather than just accepting all appeals.
     
  18. Innoverge

    Innoverge Top Contributor VIP

    Posts:
    1,660
    Likes Received:
    1,271
    It's high time WIPO cleans up its act and revamps its sentiments towards domain investing, establishing a balanced and trustworthy UDRP process.

    It's quite shocking how the panelist was quick to side with 'BC30' being a component of the 'Ganedenbc30' mark, over the possibility of it just being a random LLNN.com registration, with a pre-existing demand.

    Even though the keyword BC30 is more niche, than generic, the panelist's conclusion on the respondent's intentions at the time of reg'n is still quite the leap and not well founded.

    This judgement is either the result of a biased panelist or one who was offended by your provocative response, and felt compelled to deliver a judgement in favor of the complainant, just to make a point, either way it doesn't reflect well on WIPO.
     
  19. timestamp

    timestamp Established Member

    Posts:
    354
    Likes Received:
    266
    Sorry, you have mistaken me for someone who cares about bible.
    But yes, if someone attempts to pull that sh!t I hope they lose domain. Or at least, make that stunt public.
     
  20. nothere

    nothere Established Member ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    421
    Likes Received:
    242
    It was a gamble and he lost this one. Maybe he won last week on another offer. It happens, but I would have the same if I was the company though.

     
  21. BrandEntrance.com

    BrandEntrance.com Open 24/7/365 VIP

    Posts:
    1,971
    Likes Received:
    2,253
    What about petitioning for transparency as far as these secret panels are concerned. Cloak and dagger... is always cloak and dagger.
     
  22. MadAboutDomains

    MadAboutDomains Top Contributor VIP ★★★★★★★★★★

    Posts:
    3,482
    Likes Received:
    1,826
    No, I was countering your attempt at being virtuous. It's not a 'stunt' to sell your stuff at a price that you desire. Whether that fails in the court of public opinion really makes no difference. Business is business, but wishing ill on others or reveling in their misfortunes isn't normal, let alone virtuous.
     
  23. timestamp

    timestamp Established Member

    Posts:
    354
    Likes Received:
    266
    What was right thing to do?
    If you don't do the right thing, then yes, I wish you to lose.
     
  24. topdom

    topdom Top Contributor VIP

    Posts:
    1,521
    Likes Received:
    1,264
    Things happen around "bad faith" criteria. It is very subjective. They can't prove it , but they just show random "evidence".

    It could be reversible somewhere, but I'm not sure if it is worth it.

    I would just take 4200, or maybe even less. But you can also shoot to the moon, if you think you can defend your domain despite corruption.

    You can use an attorney to get a list of favorable past decisions. But I would never use one.

    In this case it doesn't matter whether there is bad faith or not. They interpret things to their advantage, ignore counterevidence etc. I think even if there is bad faith you can ask 3K-4K unless things are too obvious , because this would probably be cheaper than their total cost.
     
    Last edited: Feb 21, 2020
  25. Rob Monster

    Rob Monster CEO, Epik Epik.com Staff PRO VIP

    Posts:
    4,313
    Likes Received:
    17,973
    It looked like 2 different offers.

    See here:

    upload_2020-2-21_11-36-43.png

    There was an offer thread that started on September 18, 2019.

    There was another other offer thread started on October 23, 2019.

    How am I supposed to know that these are the same person? I can't. It is a black box.

    So, before the $4200 buyer closed, I get another inquiry. I assume it is a new bidder and that the old bidder was not yet ready to complete their transaction.

    In either case, my offer was in the right range. This was no moonshot.

    The problem is that Domain Agents is a blackbox and offers no assistance in managing the dialog to get to a funded transaction. That is why I mostly ignore Domain Agents.
     

Want to reply or ask your own question?

It only takes a minute to sign up – and it's free!
Topics / Tags:
NameWorth
  1. NamePros uses cookies and similar technologies. By using this site, you are agreeing to our privacy policy, terms, and use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice
Loading...