UDRP BC30.com UDRP lost by NamePros Member

[Silentptnr]

Sorry to read that Rob Monster lost a domain and a payday. I learned from this.

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

Let's discuss this.

I personally have never been involved in a udrp case, but naturally I've contemplated my plan if I ever am.

 

[Innoverge]

It was a hand-reg for which I had a fairly modest basis.

The buyer had used DomainAgents to try to buy it in September. I gave them a very fair offer:

Show attachment 145323

They then filed a UDRP. My upside was probably a bit capped so hiring John Berryhill was not really a slam dunk for ROI even though I would probably hire him if he liked his odds.

It was also a bit of an experiment to see if the one-person panel is capable of getting it right.

I submit they did not.

Here was my input to this case sent on January 10, 2020 to WIPO:

#####

In brief, BC30.com was bought be me. It is LLNN.com popular with Chinese speculators lately. We have owned it for a long time. It could easily refer to the year 30 B.C. as well as countless other BC 3.0, etc.

You can be fully certain that the domain was registered in 2011 by me, on the drop, for no other reason than because it is short, like Epik.com. There is absolutely no case of malfeasance. None.

However, if we lose this complaint, we will take care to critique the outcome in the public theater. We are not huge believers in the future of WIPO. See here:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/have-you-hugged-your-whois-privacy-provider-today.1162503

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...upper-that-is-held-via-privacy-proxy.1163437/

These articles get thousands of views because I wrote them. Most of my threads rank in the top most active in any given month.

Here is one written by someone else:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/qa...tqatar-com-in-cybersquatting-dispute.1163473/

It should have had a lot more activity due to the egregiousness of the decision. I have yet to draw attention to it.

Long story short: dissatisfaction with WIPO increases with each passing day, in part because the system is routinely abused by overreaching complainants.

In fact, WIPO UDRP made my prediction list for 2020:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/happy-new-years-what-is-your-2020-forecast.1170533/

See the second to last prediction:

Show attachment 145324

I suggest make the right decision. The domain is generic and the complaint should be denied. And if you would find RDNH, I will acknowledge a glimmer of hope when it comes to due process from WIPO.

I also suggest you advise complainants to just pay a fair price for domains they have no right to in the first place. It saves time and it will avoid the early demise of your institution as you seek to redeem yourselves in 2020.

Good luck.

Regards,
Rob

#####

Well, folks, it's time for some sunlight. It's time to put on your shades because WIPO thuggery is on parade.

Show attachment 145325

Time to pick apart their findings and see what can be learned from it.

Looking ahead, the DNProtect.com project being developed with @bhartzer will help folks insure against such nonsense cases. There is protection in numbers -- spread the risk across many domains.

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.

 

[karmaco]

This case unfortunately was probably lost on the response. He just didn’t like the response. Response should have all the reasons why you did not buy in bad faith, price comps, and any supportive evidence including your take on the offers.

I would take it a step further and say it was lost based on the person who owns it. That’s discriminatory and they just hide behind previous UDRPs to explain it away. Bottom line is they didn’t like the response and don’t like Rob. If they can rule against him apparently they will.

 

[Rob Monster]

Quick update here.

BC30.com pro se legal complaint and related documents are ready to file thanks to some timely help from @patents. Deadline is Wednesday. I am debating whether to give the defendant the chance to settle for $4200, their last offer. In the meantime, any legal folks with eagle guys are welcome to PM me for a preview of the draft filings.

@patents has a record of prevailing in civil actions against nonsense UDRP judgements. Assuming civil courts in home jurisdiction do a better job than WIPO at protecting private property, this just means that WIPO becomes a lead-generator for serious and determined buyers. WIPO goes from being bounty-hunters for overreaching complainants, to becoming a lead-generator for lawfully engaged registrants.

With Epik, Inc (registrar) and Anonymize, Inc (WHOIS proxy) both domiciled in King County, WA, this could be a more frequent thing. Lose in UDRP with minimal defense against a sole corporate-sponsored panelists where the oppositions lays out the entire case, and then prevail in civil action. Of course you have to pick your battles. If you registered a name that you should not own, I would dump it.

Fiat justitia ruat caelum

 

[David Michaels]

Judge Robert Lasnik is an experienced judge with 43 trademark cases in the past decade. Six are currently pending, including the BC30 .com case.

Judge Lasnik has presided over three other ACPA cases:

1. A default judgment regarding BungeChicago .com - cybersquatting
2. A settlement regarding Happy Halloween's screams .com hijacking, and
3. A settlement regarding Domain Market's LakesGas .com hijacking.

No documents were filed regarding the settlement amounts for the hijacking cases.

Judge Lasnik is has awarded a full range of attorney's fees and huge amounts of damages in non-trademark cases.

Good luck!

 

[Silentptnr]

I support your position on this Rob.

Ironic the domain was bc and the decision was bc as in bull crap.

 

[Rob Monster]

I think past misdeeds caught up with you AND USED AGAINST YOU HERE.

What were you thinking here?

Show attachment 145552

Nah, not a misdeed.

It was a bulk deal with MMX for DIgitalTown for a project. We never sold any of them. They were to be given away. The logical owners just had to claim them. Content-wise there was no trespass on marks.

I realize in retrospect that some panelists now find that to be a convenient excuse for engaging in their bounty-hunting projects for their corporate sponsors.

Look up the case for Gorgonzola.city -- we won that case but dropped the domain anyway. The entire UDRP process is a tax on the domain economy. If you don't pay to play, you lose. That's not justice.

 

[Ategy]

Wow guys .. look .. I'll be the first to say that ICANN needs to clean up and standardise what happens to domains after expiration. There should be rules about minimum grace periods, blackouts between unintended ownership, standards for auctioning expired domains, etc etc. I'd be 100% for that.

HOWEVER .. under the current rules @Rob Monster has done nothing wrong.

Beyond that it's not even a particularly great domain .. I personally ignore LLNN domains. So I really don't see the issue here .. the original owner let it drop .. but Rob saw something in it and renewed it himself for 8 years and then got lucky with a potential buyer. It's really that simple.

I can’t even believe @Rob Monster admitted it in this thread, publicly. Look back. Epik takes expired domains for themselves.

They are allowed to do what they want with expired domains as long as they give the original owner minimum notices and time to renew (which was done here).

So the entire thread here revolves around a udrp for a domain that @Rob Monster didn't pay for. Instead, he took it from a customer at epik because he had access to the back end of his website.

You're really twisting things with semantics here .. of course he paid for the domain .. he paid the same $7.85 a year to Verisign that all registrars pay for domains. By paying verisign for an abandoned domain, he's the owner .. it's really that simple. You might not like the process .. you might want there to be different rules in place .. but given the current existing rules he did absolutely nothing wrong. In fact .. by holding the domain himself, he actually gave the original owner an extra 11 months opportunity to reclaim it.

It’s in the thread if you read it. Epik took the domain behind the scenes. They didn’t buy it.
When is the last time you got a free domain? Case closed

Again .. not free .. same price as every .com domain!

... but the original owner (Mike) would have been able to recover his domain for the next one year. Since we're talking eight years later, I'm wondering if Mike would still able allowed to recover the domain? Or if there's a hard line in one year after, but given Epik still owns the domain, I don't think it's unreasonable for the original owner to ask to recover his domain

Why? Do you have the obligation of giving a domain back to the original who let it expire 8 years ago? He had an extra 11 months more than most people get. Starting 11 months prior to the last day the original owner could have reclaimed it, Rob paid Verisign for the domain .. and every year after that.

Digressing back to @Keith point, if the acquisition price of BC30 was $0. Than this enture thread here revolves around a UDRP for a domain that came with a $0 acquisition fee minus renewal fee's.

How is that relevant .. I grab amazing domains at $5-$11 closeout that I resell all over the 4-figure spectrum .. acquisition price should have ZERO relevance on UDRPs .. in fact .. if it did it would be an EXTREMELY bad thing for domainer investors who also invest TIME which wouldn't be included in any such calculations.

NOTE!!! WE KEPT IT RATHER THAN SENDING IT THROUGH THE EXPIRY STREAM. That equals free in my book and an abuse via the registrar, Epik.

On Day 36 of expiry, we send domains to Snapnames.

It did go through the stream .. anybody had a chance to grab it when it went to SnapNames on day 36!

So it’s clear, they kept it, it was not paid for. If Epik wanted the domain they should’ve let it drop and competed with you and I on the open market.

Again .. he did pay verisign for it. And he's 100% allowed to renew and keep the domains himself .. just like how GoDaddy resells our expired domains and keeps 100% of the profits! Make no mistake .. while it might not be exactly that legally, GoDaddy does take all of our expired domains and sells them for themselves .. exactly what you're "accusing" Rob of doing here.

What if this was a LL .com? People would hit the roof. But it’s the principle of the matter. Theft is theft.

The original owner let it expire ... how is that theft? Do you accuse GoDaddy of stealing your expired domains when they put them through their expired auctions? It's the same thing. Yes I agree ICANN should institute better rules and guidelines, but there is absolutely nothing against the current rules here.

Please show us emails from Mike where he said he didn’t intend to drop BC30. Otherwise admit that Epik used their position as registrar to take ownership of an expired domain, with the intent to profit.

By not responding to the 7 emails and then by not renewing the domain that 100% shows intention. It's absurd to expect all registrars all over the world to make personal assurances that indeed the owners of the 100,000+ domains that expire every day actually "intended" to let them drop. Seriously? The email notification system is pretty solid and fair. Plus in this case the original owner had an extra year.

Please show us emails from Mike where he said he didn’t intend to drop BC30. Otherwise admit that Epik used their position as registrar to take ownership of an expired domain, with the intent to profit.

Again .. everything here is moot .. who cares if he intended to drop it or not .. Rob gave him an extra 11 months to reclaim it .. on top of the 7 other email notices!

Rob can’t tell us why he held this specific domain for this specific customer. Maybe the customer died and the family contacted Epik? Nah. Tell us why you just had to hold BC30.com for yourself!

Again .. who cares! It's not relevant in any way. He probably saw some potential value in it so kept it aside for a year for the original owner. Then after he kept renewing it for himself personally specifically for the same reason he originally saw value in it.

A concern might be the registrant (Mike) didn't get the notice.

How is that something Rob/Epik should be responsible for? They sent out 7 emails! Did you want them to send an 8th? lol .. It's pretty clear the original owner very likely simply no longer wanted to renew the domain. Who cares what the reason was .. it's not relevant in any way as long as he got his warnings/notifications.

You didn’t buy anything. “we kept it”.
Those were your words, not mine. Are you changing your story?

He meant it in the same way you "keep" your own domains each year. Rob paid all the renewal fees all along .. most importantly in that first year after the original owner let the domain expire!


I really want to stress to you all that nobody should ever be forced to justify their reasons for owning a domain. If we actually had to defend the reasons of our ownership of domains that would be legally disastrous for domainers. We buy domains because we want to own it .. period. Exclamation points !!! I can't understate how bad that would be for all of us.

 

[Rob Monster]

The defendant's counsel indicated a desire to settle. We have been exploring that request in good faith. In the absence of an acceptable settlement, the case proceeds.

Timing-wise, during COVID and Seattle riots, the Seattle courts were not moving quickly so there was no urgency. Now that the courts are back to work, we plan to move to meet the court's deadlines.

Just FYI, the US service of process is trivial. For the non-US defendant in the case, there are additional costs and fees for service under the Hague Convention, mainly related to translation.

 

[pb]

In a fair case I would win, but I assume I have 50 percent chance of winning because of corruption.

I would say you have 5% and that's still generous. You could be selling potency enhancement herbs under microsoft2bighard.com and still lose the domain to Microsoft because of the enormous brand recognition, and IBM has a brand at least as strong.

Also I think it would be wise to ask the mods to split this section from this thread as it's completely off-topic.

 

[jberryhill]

Curious to hear if there are any updates...

So, as for BC30.com, I am confident that the facts are fully on my side, and look forward to justice being served, and for a high profile win against corporate sponsored WIPO thuggery.

Timing-wise, during COVID and Seattle riots, the Seattle courts were not moving quickly so there was no urgency. Now that the courts are back to work, we plan to move to meet the court's deadlines.

 

[jberryhill]

Incidentally, Rob referred to the VisitQatar.com case earlier in this thread.

Yes, it was a bad decision. Bad decisions happen. However, the registrant in that case engaged counsel, and is continuing to contest the decision:

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/16525539/mehdiyev-v-qatar-national-tourism-council/

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Looks like BC30.com has finally been transferred to the complainant.

Domain Name: bc30.com
Registry Domain ID: 1659541390_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN
Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.corporatedomains.com
Registrar URL: www.cscprotectsbrands.com
Updated Date: 2021-03-03T12:19:18Z
Creation Date: 2011-06-02T15:03:22Z
Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2022-06-02T19:03:22Z
Registrar: CSC CORPORATE DOMAINS, INC.
Sponsoring Registrar IANA ID: 299
Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected]
Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.8887802723
Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited
Registry Registrant ID:
Registrant Name: Domain Administrator
Registrant Organization: Kerry Luxembourg S.a.r.l.
Registrant Street: 17, rue Antoine Jans
Registrant City: Luxembourg

Edit: Hi @Samer I see you liked this comment, then removed your like.

 

[The Durfer]

Communism at its finest, you can have things but the government owns it all anyway.

 

[Silentptnr]

Yeah, there have been a couple of times I put a deadline on a price. I told the buyer that the price quote was good for a specific period, after which, I would not be bound to that price. Maybe that's what happened here.

I would have probably consulted, if not engaged, legal counsel. Maybe the domain wasn't valuable enough to Rob to get legal counsel?

Either way, I'm surprised that the complainant won. Their trademark was not even close to the domain at issue. I think it was a bad udrp decision.

I'd love to know more. Can you discuss this @Rob Monster ?

 

[Mister Funsky]

Exactly.

The crazy part is that the $4800 would have been about what they probably ended up funding in legal fee and WIPO filing fees to get the domain. It just took longer and gave me a new ax to grind.

The case was far from a slam dunk for the complainant and now WIPO has to endure the court of public opinion for getting another case wrong.

Anyway, WIPO will end soon. With each abuse of due process, the Internet further decentralizes.

Of all the changes/improvement/additions happening at Epik, I am becoming more and more convinced the DNProtect project will have an immediate and long lasting influence on the domain industry. I've been unable to work out in my mind an ideal way for it to operate, but I wish you and the programmers lots of success in making it a viable service!

 

[Silentptnr]

It was a hand-reg for which I had a fairly modest basis.

The buyer had used DomainAgents to try to buy it in September. I gave them a very fair offer:

Show attachment 145323

They then filed a UDRP. My upside was probably a bit capped so hiring John Berryhill was not really a slam dunk for ROI even though I would probably hire him if he liked his odds.

It was also a bit of an experiment to see if the one-person panel is capable of getting it right.

I submit they did not.

Here was my input to this case sent on January 10, 2020 to WIPO:

#####

In brief, BC30.com was bought be me. It is LLNN.com popular with Chinese speculators lately. We have owned it for a long time. It could easily refer to the year 30 B.C. as well as countless other BC 3.0, etc.

You can be fully certain that the domain was registered in 2011 by me, on the drop, for no other reason than because it is short, like Epik.com. There is absolutely no case of malfeasance. None.

However, if we lose this complaint, we will take care to critique the outcome in the public theater. We are not huge believers in the future of WIPO. See here:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/have-you-hugged-your-whois-privacy-provider-today.1162503

https://www.namepros.com/threads/wh...upper-that-is-held-via-privacy-proxy.1163437/

These articles get thousands of views because I wrote them. Most of my threads rank in the top most active in any given month.

Here is one written by someone else:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/qa...tqatar-com-in-cybersquatting-dispute.1163473/

It should have had a lot more activity due to the egregiousness of the decision. I have yet to draw attention to it.

Long story short: dissatisfaction with WIPO increases with each passing day, in part because the system is routinely abused by overreaching complainants.

In fact, WIPO UDRP made my prediction list for 2020:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/happy-new-years-what-is-your-2020-forecast.1170533/

See the second to last prediction:

Show attachment 145324

I suggest make the right decision. The domain is generic and the complaint should be denied. And if you would find RDNH, I will acknowledge a glimmer of hope when it comes to due process from WIPO.

I also suggest you advise complainants to just pay a fair price for domains they have no right to in the first place. It saves time and it will avoid the early demise of your institution as you seek to redeem yourselves in 2020.

Good luck.

Regards,
Rob

#####

Well, folks, it's time for some sunlight. It's time to put on your shades because WIPO thuggery is on parade.

Show attachment 145325

Time to pick apart their findings and see what can be learned from it.

Looking ahead, he DNProtect.com project being developed with @bhartzer will help folks insure against such nonsense cases. There is protection in numbers -- spread the risk across many domains.

lol....I love the punch behind the pillow in your response.

 

[Ja Kai]

@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.

 

[timestamp]

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.

 

[Rob Monster]

Working on engaging counsel.

As counsel has suggested, there are 2 options at this stage:

1. File suit within 10 business days of notification of the decision in the Mutual Jurisdiction.

2. Go "Full metal jacket," don't transfer the domain name, and go to the mat with ICANN Compliance over it.

We are evaluating our options.

For those who wonder, my fundamental issue is not the $4K in missed revenue. That is certainly material but in the larger scheme, most of those DomainAgents inquiries have been a waste of time so folks might understand why I mostly ignore them largely due to the absence of sufficient meta data. Same for Sedo by the way. I ignore since most of what comes in just low-ball tire-kicking noise. Sincere buyers eventually find a WHOIS record or contact us via our landing pages.

We'll see how this plays out.

By the way, see my 2020 prediction thread:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/happy-new-years-what-is-your-2020-forecast.1170533

Not only did I predict that Uniregistry would be acquired, but I predicted this:

 

[bmugford]

2. Go "Full metal jacket," don't transfer the domain name, and go to the mat with ICANN Compliance over it.

We are evaluating our options.

I am going to assume Epik is an ICANN accredited registrar. I am also going to assume as an accredited registrar you need to accept certain TOS such as when it comes to UDRP decisions.

I largely disagree with this decision, but IMO it could be a potential disaster if you go that route.

Brad

 

[Rob Monster]

I am going to assume Epik is an ICANN accredited registrar. I am also going to assume as an accredited registrar you need to accept certain TOS such as when it comes to UDRP decisions.

I largely disagree with this decision, but IMO it could be a potential disaster if you go that route.

Brad

We'll navigate it with counsel's input.

My point is that WIPO has failed in their mandate. You can be sure that this is not a selfish statement. It is a general statement that WIPO has become bounty hunters for their (corporate) sponsors.

That was not WIPO's mandate. I would like to see it replaced with technology that will do a better job at mediating disputes than what WIPO offers today.

In the meantime, it would be really great if more marketplaces would follow Epik's example and show the full contact details of any inquiry. It would have prevented this annoying chapter.

 

[Innoverge]

THAT is the root of the issue: WIPO's allowed one of their henchmen to concoct a nonsense narrative. That false narrative clearly made no effort to fact-check the assertion which means an erroneous conclusion. As the ultimate production and of review of evidence will validate, there was no actual malfeasance or bad faith registration nor bad faith in any subsequent negotiation that could have easily been a moonshot.

I am sure WIPO got this wrong. We are now evaluating our options here and contemplating whether to pursue damages for defamation by propagating the nonsense that not actively defending a domain that has low basis is an admission of guilt. I expect WIPO to function in its fiduciary capacity and not be a bounty hunter for corporate domain buyers who don't want to negotiate a fair price in good faith.

It's only fair that the burden of proof be on neither parties and every case be analyzed solely based on its unique elements and circumstances, which it usually has.

Also lack of a proper defense shouldn't constitute an admission of guilt, especially when some of the complaints are so outrageous and desperate that, spending money defending it would only make it worse.

As preposterous arguments go, this is quite hilarious:-
"The fact that the Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name or sought to contact the Complainant for eight years also shows bad faith. The Respondent was waiting for the Complainant to approach him and to negotiate an extortionate price."

 

[Reddstagg]

If I may, please let me explain a situation that I have encountered in my life which is intrinsically linked to domain investing.

I spend the best part of 10 years pouring my blood, sweat and tears into writing and publishing a book. For arguments sake lets call it 'Reddstagg Ranger'. I finish the book and self publish it on Kindle. It should be mentioned here that it was quite a controversial book and was aimed for the adult market.

Low and behold after a few months I check on-line and see another book called 'Reddstagg Ranger and the Zombies from Moon'. This was a children's book. I contacted the Publisher and advised them that I had previously published a book using the 'Reddstagg Ranger' title and would they kindly remove their book as it was 'identical or confusingly similar'.

However, lesson learned. It is not possible to attach a copyright to the title of a book and that's why if you search carefully you will find many examples of books published at different times by different people with the same title.

This concept makes absolutely no sense to me.

My view on this situation is that owning a trademark and running a business is completely different to owning a domain name. If you can't or won't spend money to register all available domain names when you have the opportunity to do so then that is at your peril.

If you like a house and you're very near to pulling the trigger on the purchase, but don't or you delay and I come along and buy the house how can it be fair for you to go running off to a third party adjudicator and state that you own several other houses on that street so you should be given the house instead of me. It's different if you have already signed a contract. That's the law and it should be abided by. However, many years are hundreds of years old and no longer apply in today's world.

I urge everyone involved to do all that they can to change the tide in our favor.

There used to be a legal precedent which stated that the law should be according to what is 'reasonable'. If someone breaks in to your house you are permitted by law to use reasonable force. Unfortunately, no two people would have the same definition of reasonable.

A 'Reasonable' compromise in cases like this may be if it is beyond reasonable doubt that an infraction has occurred, whether deliberate or accidental then the domain name may be handed over to the TM holder but a reasonable and fair form of compensation should be offered to the domain investor.

No system is completely fool proof but maybe only having one adjudicator on the panel offers a distorted view of what is 'Reasonable'.

Regards,

Reddstagg

 

[Keith]

Actually, you are mistaken, and here's why:

At Epik, if a domain is dropped by a client and they need to recover it, for the next 1 year if we have the domain they are free to recover it for a fixed price of $199.

If 1 out of 24 persons come back to retrieve an abandoned name, we break even at a renewal cost of $8.10 for .COM. It is a win-win and the $199 pays for the others that don't come back.

If it is a case of bulk neglect, we'll often waive the fee, e.g. if it was a hospitalization or other tragedy that could not have been foreseen.

And if folks are truly disposing of domains we now give them a risk-free to liquidate those names at NameLiquidate and made it a one-click process to submit inventory.

So, yes, not only are you off topic, but you are wrong as well. If you have a problem with the practice, go buy a registrar. You can look at their public finances and find out that is not all that lucrative a gig.

If you held ALL expired domains for a year beyond the expiry I’d buy the argument. You don’t do that because of your BO system in place, which isn’t honored fairly across the board either.

In this case, you simply took the domain for yourself. You kept it instead of sending through the expiry process, in your own words.

If you don’t see the problem there I can’t help you out.

 

[Rob Monster]

As for the Complaint with their over-reaching case, let's also take inventory of who we are talking about:

https://www.linkedin.com/in/edmondscanlon/

Annual revenue of about $6.6 billion.

I had no idea that this was the person trying to buy the domain, but clearly whether the price was $4200 or $7500, it was in their price range. This was far from being exploitative.