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.

 

[nothere]

I didn't want to be the first one to say it .. but yeah ultimately I think that's their only argument that has any chance. Although I'm not sure what the actual law says on that. In theory Rob should be allowed to charge what he wants at any time. But trademarks are not black and white .. and sometimes you don't have the freedom to do just anything with your own domains. One thing is for sure .. it's going to be a very interesting case.

It's in lawyers hands now. Or it will be when filed and served. They will pour through UDRP history, comments here and all. Lawyers have a duty to do their best for clients and they love billable hours. One side will pay them, along with a possible $100K fine and other fees, so it's no game. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticybersquatting_Consumer_Protection_Act

 

[frank-germany]

"Top contributor" would be a generous label. "Top nonsense spouter" is more like it.

@Rob Monster

Glad to see you love everybody
and don't judge anybody

 

[frank-germany]

But 100,000 other domains EVERY DAY? Really?! That seems like a fake number. Why double down on fake statistics by CAPITALIZING every day?.

as I' running f1lter.com
I actually can confirm
that its even more on a daily basis
what is dropping

even much more when you take all extensions into the equation

in the database are
"database size: 1191258 dropping domain"
as of today that 's from a 12 days period only

not including .de and other country level domains

 

[frank-germany]

As for managing the expiry stream, each day I have to decide which domains to let go to Snapnames after the grace period. This is a very efficient process done through a single screen with some analytics.

On some days, the review involves a lot of names with really no time to research them. It is a quick gut decision of whether or not to let a name to go to the wolves or to warehouse them.

to get the discussion out of this thread
here is a poll

after expiry should a registrar give a domain back to the pool?

https://www.namepros.com/threads/af...strar-give-a-domain-back-to-the-pool.1179424/

 

[Chris Hydrick]

as I' running f1lter.com
I actually can confirm
that its even more on a daily basis
what is dropping

even much more when you take all extensions into the equation

in the database are
"database size: 1191258 dropping domain"
as of today that 's from a 12 days period only

not including .de and other country level domains

I'm talking about total amount of domains that expire, and before dropping, the registrar renews the domain and puts it into their in house portfolio.

I'm NOT talking about the total amount of domains that expire, delete, or change ownership every day.

As previously mentioned, yesterday ExpiredDomains.net had yielded 145,887 total domains deleted in a 24 hour period.

This is what it looked like when it was reported Pheenix was warehousing:

https://www.namepros.com/threads/ph...their-customers-expired-domain-names.1048937/

So, @frank-germany, to confirm, are you saying that every day registrars move/renew 100,000+ expired customer domains into their in house portfolio?

 

[Ategy]

I think with @Keith he maybe wasn't aware of ICANN rules and that you were actually doing nothing against those rules. Also, while optically different, technically almost all the other registrars "take and profit from" their clients' expired domains by trying to sell them at auction. It's a different route, but the ultimate action is the same.

So, @frank-germany, to confirm, are you saying that every day registrars move 100,000+ expired customer domains into their in house portfolio?

@Grilled .. most domains get taken out of the client's control into the registrar's control, and then put on auction with 0% of the profit going to the owner. So the end result is exactly the same thing .. just that then the registrar throws the domain away if it doesn't sell because they judge it to be worthless .. but do NOT dismiss the fact they did originally take it away and tried to sell it for their own profit. Yes .. that happens to 50-60,000 domains a day via GoDaddy, and as they represent about half of the domain market, it isn't a stretch to say that about 100k domains a day get seized from their registrars to be auctioned. It's probably a touch less, in the 80k-90k range as I think all the other auction platforms combined are likely a bit less than GoDaddy (I only follow GoDaddy's expiration stream), but to say it's about 100k is not a big stretch.

If you go on NameCult, at the top of each daily auction listing I post the total number of domains at auction just at GoDaddy, last week there was at least one day where it hit ~64k I'm pretty sure.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

@Grilled .. most domains get taken out of the client's control into the registrar's control, and then put on auction with 0% of the profit going to the owner. So the end result is exactly the same thing .. just that then the registrar throws the domain away if it doesn't sell because they judge it to be worthless .. but do NOT dismiss the fact they did originally take it away and tried to sell it for their own profit. Yes .. that happens to 50-60,000 domains a day via GoDaddy, and as they represent about half of the domain market, it isn't a stretch to say that about 100k domains a day get seized from their registrars to be auctioned. It's probably a touch less, in the 80k-90k range as I think all the other auction platforms combined are likely a bit less than GoDaddy (I only follow GoDaddy's expiration stream), but to say it's about 100k is not a big stretch.

I'd like to know how many customer owned domains GoDaddy renews and moves into their in house portfolio every day?

Is it anywhere near 64,000 per day?

In May of 2018, @Joe Styler of GoDaddy said:

...We do not bid on domains or warehouse any domains that expire. We acquire our domains by buying portfolios from other domain investors or companies.

 

[NicTraders]

To say NameLiquidate is filling this gap, is a bit of stretch. Yes, investors keep 91%. But is this a default for all Epik domains? Why not?

They have spoken about the possibility of doing this in the future when the platform is better developed. As a user I can tell you it's not there yet. But even the chance they will do this in the future is pretty amazing - I can't imagine another registrar on the planet being willing to do it.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

In this case, it seems like the decision was a bad one.

If you are referring to Rob's derogatory remarks (and threats) about the UDRP and the Center, then I agree!

....

As for an update on BC30.com.

It's been nearly 5 months since the panel ordered the domain transferred to the complainant.

BC30.com still redirects to an epik make offer landing page. https://archive.li/DRQPZ

BC30.com still has a make minimum offer via GD search. https://archive.li/eewqD

WHOIS appears to have updated on: 2020-05-27T08:20:03Z
Likely a renewal to: 2021-06-02T19:03:22Z

Does anybody have any links to the court case?

 

[Keith]

Rob has until August 13 to explain why he has apparently done nothing since filing the suit, or the case will be dismissed. Once the case is dismissed, the registrar is obligated to transfer the domain name to the Complainant.

@Rob Monster

 

[sharfab]

I would like for Rob to respond to the court and defend his domain name.....

 

[jberryhill]

they'd be dumb not to settle

There's no reason for them to settle. The current dynamic is that if they do nothing, they get the domain name. If the case has not been served on them, then it's Rob who has to go to court to argue to keep the case alive.

On the other side, if the point of this litigation was to do things like:

- 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.

or

then reaching a settlement with the complainant in this UDRP case doesn't get anywhere near those things.

You litigate for two reasons: (1) to prove a point and make some law, or (2) to remedy a problem which the law is capable of addressing.

If you are in the business of making points, then you don't settle. For example, if the inter-racial couple who sued the State of Virginia in Loving v. Virginia had settled with the State of Virginia on the basis of "Okay, we'll let you two get married", that would have solved their immediate problem, but would do nothing for anyone else.

But there is no settlement here which is going to affect "WIPO's right to exist". That's kind of a tall order anyway since WIPO is an organization that was created by a treaty among quite a large number of countries, including the US, to administer certain tasks under that treaty. In the larger scheme of things, the UDRP is a teeny-tiny part of what WIPO does, and is a small money-losing part of their otherwise considerable budget from the Patent Cooperation Treaty chunk of their operations.

As for the second goal above, we are approaching seven months into 2020, and I don't see much evidence of "the industry" fighting back against WIPO, nor is there any imminent threat to "WIPO's right to exist". Part of the reason the UDRP exists was to get registrars out of the business of adjudicating trademark claims, and to offload potentially liability for those sorts of decisions.

So, in any event, settling with the other side certainly doesn't advance any stated goal of the litigation. If one were advising a well-funded company on the best approach to dealing with a pro se litigator, then the best advice, absent service having been made, is to let that pro se litigator flounder about and see if the court dismisses the case on its own.

 

[jberryhill]

I meant to say “Post ‘em as other threads and see if you get lucky.” This thread already had a topic.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Thanks for the update!

So what happens now?

Will ICANN have to force Epiks hand to relinquish the domain?Does Epik have the option to file another lawsuit prior to relinquishing control? I'm basically wondering what is the proper procedure for contested UDRPs following a case judgement?

Additionally, and I'm not saying this is the case here, but I'm wondering, in theory, can anybody who loses a WIPO UDRP file a lawsuit in their local jurisdiction simply to postpone relinquishing the domain and prolong their ownership? Almost as if, appealing the decision, grants the domain owner more ownership time while leaving themselves open to a possible settlement option. So what's the risk type thinking...?

 

[Keith]

I wouldn’t trust epik.com to hold my worst domain, based on their BO policy alone, not to mention the many other shenanigans surrounding the business.

 

[jberryhill]

Okay, well, that certainly ties them together. I guess that registrar was sold again later on, since it is clearly owned by Web.com now. It's interesting that in 2020, Rob kept historical login records for a registrar dating from before the time he purchased it, and which he later sold. Normally, you don't keep the proprietary business data of a business which you've sold.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

A little follow up...

It does NOT appear the 2011 Epik acquisition of IntrustDomains included registrars

Rob Monster - Epik says July 20, 2011 at 6:02 pm
@Adam
For the moment, we acquired Registrar management which includes leased use of registry connections. Fundamentally, this was a technology + customer deal.

In addition to having acquired some robust domain management technology (see registrar.epik.com), we are in the process of acquiring a portfolio of registrars. This is mainly for ongoing use of registry connections with backorder operations.

Worth noting is that the technology solution that we have developed here is actually agnostic about whether you have your domain at GoDaddy, Intrust, or elsewhere. Hence the distinction between “internal” and “external” domains.

This is more similar to how a consumer uses their online brokerage account — there is relatively little regard to where the stock certificate is held. What the consumer cares about is knowing (1) the asset is held securely, and (2) they can access it upon request 24/7 via self-serve tools or via Epik customer service.

At Epik, we often use the term “Domain Name Asset Management”. We think this is an accurate way to describe what it is we are building for use by domain investors.

Hope that helps.

• Rob stated the acquisition included leased use of registry connections. In another comment, Rob mentioned 34 registry connections. Not sure how many of them were leased, and for how long.
• Rob also stated that fundamentally, it was a tech + customer deal. So does that explain how Michael Bush aka the former CEO of Ganeden became clients of Rob/Epik? They were purchased?

<<>>

• IntrustDomains, INC <IANA ID#653> received a breach of RAA notice <27 April 2012 -- during the time BC30.com was owned by fromer Ganeden CEO Michael Bush> in addition to having been deemed non-compliant for not clearly displaying on its website details of its deletion and auto-renewal policies and any fee charged for the recovery of a domain name during the Redemption Grace Period, as required by Sections 3.7.5.5 and 3.7.5.6 of the RAA.

• Seeing how Epik is <IANA ID# 617>, not <IANA ID# 653> does the non-compliance notice apply to epik, given epik had allegedly acquired Intrusts 27,000 customer accounts and registry business? And what happened to the customer accounts after the registry connection lease expired and when the registrars were sold to other entities?

History of IANA #653 <eg. Registrar: Intrust Domains, Inc>

August 2004: That Darn Name, Inc <[email protected]>
June 2009: That Darn Name, Inc <[email protected]>
June 2010 - October 2012: Intrust Domains, Inc** <[email protected]>
January 2013 - July 2014: YourJungle, Inc. <[email protected]>
March 2015 - June 2016: NamePal.com #8028 <[email protected]>
September 2016 - Current: NamePal.com #8028 <[email protected]>


History of IANA #617 <eg. Registrar: Epik.com>

December 2004 - June 2009: NameQueen.com, Inc <[email protected]>
June 2010: NameQueen.com, Inc <[email protected]>
November 2010 - January 2012: NameQueen.com, Inc <[email protected]>
September 2012 - Current: Epik, Inc. <[email protected]>

• In November 2015, Rob had commented on nP that Intrust Domains LLC** owns 0.87% of epik.

2) Intrust Ownership of Epik: Intrust Domains LLC owns 0.87% of Epik. These shares were issued as part of the consideration to acquire Intrust's registrar operations in 2011. No other assets were acquired in that deal. Intrust does not have any Board representation and have never had any. This asset purchase was done with Kenn Palm in 2011. Kenn has since left the domain industry altogether. I am still in contact with Kenn as I am a reference for his IT Consulting Business, Pilgrim Consulting.

 

[sharfab]

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.

It may be wise to understand the full story before you share happy feelings of another person's loss of a domain name in UDRP. Rob clearly explained that he did not know both offers came from the same person. So therefore he has a right to change the price if the first deal was never accepted and to start fresh with what he assumed was a new second buyer. "Price adjusting" is common in domaining, it's only frowned upon when it takes place while the deal is still in play...

 

[topdom]

You can tell them, to pay 4200 to you anyway, and count this as their purchase cost, otherwise you would go to a court and and make them lose the domain, and pay for legal expenses. So this would be a counter CD letter. Normally this wouldn't work, but if an attorney writes the letter, it may (?). UDRP appeal may be another option. If JBH writes the letter it may be taken seriously....

Can it be the case that wipo encurages wrong decisions, so they would make money from appeals as well.

 

[Mister Funsky]

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

I am actually conflicted which way I would like to see you take it. It is understood you motive is not the money/profit but would either option have more of a monetary reward (if any) than the other?

 

[Rob Monster]

Not to side track the discussion but this is a huge issue for me. Netsol does the same thing with valuable domains. Seems like an abuse of power.

To be fair, all expired domains should follow the process. If you want it, let it delete and compete/pay the fair market value.

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.

 

[frank-germany]

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.

basically it's not a reply that will get a lot of likes here

to me, the decision of the panel is ridiculously
the complaint does not have a legal claim to the domain
based on trademarks
as far as I understand it.

- I'm not a lawyer - don't listen to me -


on the other hand
$4200 USD is a very fair offer on that domain
as far as I understand it.

- I'm not an expert - don't listen to me -


to me, the outcome is proof that the idea of
"shoot to the moon"
is an oversimplification of the real world.

It doesn't work that way
it's more complex

- I'm not a world expert - don't listen to me -

https://www.namepros.com/threads/dont-shoot-for-the-moon.1164071/

https://www.namepros.com/threads/yall-wanna-shoot-the-moon.1162085/


Bible quotes won't do it as well, of course,
as when the bible was written,
there was no internet
-only courts-

but of course, it was a kind of an early form of a forum
because many editors could post to the bible forum and later on
an admin decided what to keep and want to leave
inside the later official bible version
-based on his personal preferences

so basically the bible is a "test run" of the later internet

- I'm not a bible expert - don't listen to me -

 

[timestamp]

When was/is deadline for you to handover the domain?

Edit:
Decision > Complaint > and then, based on the outcome of complaint

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Fact

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

Thanks. I suppose I could have found the answer by looking at the previous page of this thread.

I should add this.

The domain name BC30.com was dropped by a former registrant at Epik. That's actually how we got it.

- It was registered on June 2, 2011 by a registrant whose first name is "Mike".

- He never logged in again after June 3, 2011.

- We sent renewal notices 7 times as we normally do.

- When the domain dropped out of grace period, we kept it rather than sending it through the expiry stream.

Anyway, definitely no foul play here. My cost basis was 8 years of .COM renewal.

 

[Keith]

Thanks. I suppose I could have found the answer by looking at the previous page of this thread.

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.