UDRP BC30.com UDRP lost by NamePros Member

[DaveX]

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.

 

[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?

 

[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

 

[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]

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."

 

[DanSanchez]

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."

Wow that is ludicrous, I missed that part.

 

[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

 

[Shaan Chopra]

"GANEDENBC30 registered on March 27, 2008" I don't think they mean to say that BC30 is in the name so any domain which has BC30 in it they will take it. That will be like too much. On the fun side if this is true I will go tomorrow and register for "Abcdef to z" and anyone who has these words in their domain name be ready to hand it over, I am coming for you all.

Now just with the term "BC30"
BC30 Filing Date October 13, 2010
Published for Opposition July 26, 2011

My question is being such a big company they did not care to buy the domain from October 13, 2010, to June 1, 2011. Oh, they were waiting for the trademark to get approved.

Domain Name was registered on June 2, 2011

Is there a way to check all the pending trademark registration?

Trade Mark Registration Date September 3, 2013

So now the trademark is now approved and I just don't understand what were they doing from Sep 3, 2013, to 2019?

Now coming back to GANEDENBC30 the domain GANEDENBC30 .com is created on 20-10-2006 way before the trademark actually came online. Domain points to the main site and I don't know if the bought it later or they were the first to reg.

Anyhow, best of luck.

P.S looking at all this I think domains and trademarks should be looked differently.

 

[Rob Monster]

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.

 

[Reddstagg]

Here's a thought.

Is there a list of everything that doesn't have a registered TM? It's probably a short list.

Regards,

Reddstagg

 

[Keith]

I should add this.

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

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

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 same process. If you want it, let it delete and compete/pay the fair market value.

 

[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.

 

[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]

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.

I suppose I should have left it for a dropcatcher who would ask for vastly more from the former registrant if he came knocking.

The reality is that most days there is no time to even bother reviewing the expiry stream before it goes to Snapnames. That's one main reason why people find a lot of deals here:

https://marketplace.epik.com/daily-diamonds

We have saved some folks' bacon though. I can tell you that much.

Since we are on the topic of free market capitalism, versus whatever you aspire to for the industry, I do have two related questions:

Do you not like the idea that brokers should help sellers get higher prices for domains sold on NameLiquidate.com for domains that the registrant is liquidating?

Do you not like the idea that a vast number of new bidders are arriving in the industry from emerging markets, and that they use the same tools to find inventory that you do?

Just trying to understand how much of a scarcity mindset is driving your view on this topic. If you want to share your real name, that would be cool too.

 

[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.

 

[dirk]

We have saved some folks' bacon though. I can tell you that much.

Exept for bacon.world. 11 hours to go .

In all honesty, I don't blame you for picking up that domain but most people don't like this practice. No matter who the registrar is so @Keith does raise a fair point.

But yeah, let's not get sidetracked. Following what happens as this decision is insane and concerning.

 

[Ja Kai]

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

What were you thinking here?

 

[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.

 

[nothere]

There has to be a way to crosscheck thousands of names with a trademark database and then act accordingly, depending on dates of registration and potential for a UDRP.

Not all registered trademarks can get your name: apple.com educating people the benefits of the fruit known as apple is 100% legitimate. But apple.com hawking Dell laptops and Samsung phones is just not gonna do it and they will get your name, one way or another.

 

[Martins B.]

After cases like these, it does seem like no domain is safe from just being taken.