Beware: eNom and NameCheap Suspend domains based on bogus claims by a fake company

[DomainMagnate]

problem resolved, thanks everyone for your comments.

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

Shutting down illegal pharmacies, both physical and cyber, is a good thing. Good move by the Obama administration.

How can a customer be assured of quality control if a site operates outside the law? You might as well buy off the street. Want a little embalming fluid slipped into your V1@gr@? Buy it off some illegal offshore pharmacy.

It looks as though OP got sucked into a company that he knew nothing about.

Then, again, the other elephant in the closet that no one wants to discuss is the cybersquatting issue.

I suppose the illegal pharmacy business is just too tempting, so some domainer decides to reg a few TMs and slap up some quickie "affiliate" sites.

Way to go.

No sympathy here.

*

 

[DU]

This is a threat to freedom of the Internet. There is no end to this kind of practice. After the pharmacy industry, other industries might line up on the front door of White House. For instance the music and film industry might try the same path.

Please visit NameCatchImproved.com. It used the source code and design I stole from Namecatch.com ONLY it's better because the stuff you pay for? It's FREEEEE....

Good luck stopping me ... it's the INTERNETS.. THERE ARE no laws....

Thanks.

The joke is that the freedom of the Internet is threatened through much cleverer manipulation that most people don't even recognize. AND it's happening/happened. I suppose you are ok with the examples I shared above then?

UR HAX0r Fr3nD

---------- Post added at 12:44 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:36 PM ----------

You could lose a valuable domain without warning just because those legitscript guys decide that a link on the landing page leads to a pharmacy website they don't approve.

READ YOUR T&C. If you violate them you could lose your domain (at Namecheap ALL your domains). Profiting from ILLEGAL drugs consumed in the US is a violation of the Terms you "signed".

If you do this on Candy.com you will lose Candy.com. That's why most of the time you see it on BuyChantix.com - a domain with $0 inherent value and which has value ONLY because it is violating the T&C.

If you are worried about a bigger issue? Write to your local congressman in the US (or equivalent). This is a GLOBAL POLITICAL business. Yelling on Namepros is a waste of time especially when we consider the discussion was started on a TM name making money of people being Screwed by an off shore company that either (a) Made Fake drugs putting lives at risk or (b) Sold Generic drugs putting lives at risk or (c) Generic drugs that worked but are illegal.

If OP was an AMERICAN in AMERICA - he may have actually aided and abetted illegal pharmaceutical shipping and be criminally negligent SHOULD someone have accessed the site to buy drugs and subsequently NOT got the results they expected. Yes. It's a jump. BUT I watch Law and Order.

The question of access to cheap drugs is something that Obama et al. have discussed with multiple versions of different Healthcare bills. Unfortunately, the issues get futzed up discussion of Death Panels, Taxes, Rich People and lobbyists, Partisan loyalts, and the inability for a lot of people to understand the difference between a system that serves ALL people versus one that serves some people. I understand the concern - that some paid for by Pfizer lobbyist makes Mr Stupid from Iowa sponsor the "Lets sanitize the Internet" bill.

 

[RicoShay]

I think the point that a few of the people are triyng to make here - and one that most domain investors should be weary of - is that domain registrars have the power to suspend a domain name without warning, without notification, without any sort of way of proving a "fix".

Its all great being on a high moral ground on how its against TOS, how a registrar can do what it wants, and how great Obama is for making these policies - but as someone said earlier, look at the bigger picture. If the content of a site is illegal - then leave it to the hosting company to take down the content - it really shouldn't be up to the registrar to take things into their own hands.

Shutting down pharmacies / illegal sites should be up to the host / to the ISP - and if all else fails then - and only then, it should involve the registrar.

If eNom is so affiliated with such actions with legitscript, then all domain investors should be made aware of this.

In this case, perhaps the domain was worth $0-regfee, but what if it were Property.com which had a dodgy (according to LegitScript) link? The name gets taken away? What if one of those links came via a parking script or via 3rd party advertising links? Get real here - whatever the "new rules/policies" are, it doesn't make it right. Domain investors are losing power each and every single day. For now its legitscript, next it'll be imdb or fox or whoever.

Like I said before and I'll keep repeating this - it should be the content, the hosting account which gets shut down/suspended. Not the domain name.

Actually, lets take this a little further.

What if the domain name Health.com got shut down for a similar situation. What then happens to the domain name? Do you think it gets made availble to someone else? Or will it get auctioned off at Snap or another big aftermarket/drop seller? Where does it go?

 

[DU]

I think the point that a few of the people are triyng to make here - and one that most domain investors should be weary of - is that domain registrars have the power to suspend a domain name without warning, without notification, without any sort of way of proving a "fix".

Its all great being on a high moral ground on how its against TOS, how a registrar can do what it wants, and how great Obama is for making these policies - but as someone said earlier, look at the bigger picture. If the content of a site is illegal - then leave it to the hosting company to take down the content - it really shouldn't be up to the registrar to take things into their own hands.

Shutting down pharmacies / illegal sites should be up to the host / to the ISP - and if all else fails then - and only then, it should involve the registrar.

If eNom is so affiliated with such actions with legitscript, then all domain investors should be made aware of this.

In this case, perhaps the domain was worth $0-regfee, but what if it were Property.com which had a dodgy (according to LegitScript) link? The name gets taken away? What if one of those links came via a parking script or via 3rd party advertising links? Get real here - whatever the "new rules/policies" are, it doesn't make it right. Domain investors are losing power each and every single day. For now its legitscript, next it'll be imdb or fox or whoever.

Like I said before and I'll keep repeating this - it should be the content, the hosting account which gets shut down/suspended. Not the domain name.

Actually, lets take this a little further.

What if the domain name Health.com got shut down for a similar situation. What then happens to the domain name? Do you think it gets made availble to someone else? Or will it get auctioned off at Snap or another big aftermarket/drop seller? Where does it go?

I understand what you are saying but two points:

1) You have a HOSTING T&C
2) You have a REGISTRATION T&C

Which is easier to regulate with? The one that is ICANN approved? Has a set of outlined procedures? Or a Hosting Company that could be located anywhere in the world on any server in any jurisdiction without any sort of required accreditation?

If you violate 1 you lose your hosting.
If you violate 2 you lose your domain.

I think you are right, fundamentally - there should be a remediation path. If Health.com or accidentally linked then it should not (and realistically) wouldn't be lost.

But let's be real here. The domain was BUYCHANTIX and no pontificating will ever change that. There is NO SINGLE OTHER reason that this website exists. Until someone can show me a legitimate error, or a legitimate site shut down I don't care.

There is a preferred method of achieving the same however. Perhaps we could say how unfair it is that Pfizer could sue the A$$ off the domain holder for colluding with an illegal online pharmacy (stated he was an AFFILIATE not JUST LINKS) selling ILLEGAL and UNSAFE versions of their product. Perhaps they could find someone who tried the generic and couldn't quit and died of emphysema too. Not sure with the OP being non-US... but then that's not fair either is it. Perhaps they could also sue the Hosting provider (if US based) and then influence all FUTURE hosting agreements etc.

Find me a general hosting provider who will host Porn anymore (not that I want to, but every T&C says no Porn - censorship!??? ).

You know what is potentially WORSE than the domain name business and its unfair practices? The legal system. I'd take this as a victory for the OP and a warning to others to not f*ck around with the big boys.

THE MOST ASININE thing about this is that 4RX.com is STILL UP. :lol:

 

[RicoShay]

@defaultuser

I do understand what you're saying, I don't disagree with most of it - but as I'm sure you've realised, we're pushing two separate points. One of fairness and procedure vs other of details and use of the site.

In regards to hosting, yes, again I understand your point - but the host was US based and I don't think they were even contacted in this case. But I guess the actual domain name had some part to play - which didn't help.

A few years ago I had a similar name Buy+Pharma Product which I dropped at renewal time - but I could just as easily have tried to develop it into something similar, with affiliate links. Like I said before, its not a field that I have any knowledge with and that was part of the reason I decided not to develop. However, if I had done - I would most likely have used something like 4RX.com - without knowing that they operate in the way they do (ie. appearing illegally).

This, I guess goes into a separate issue - but shouldn't the source of the problem (ie 4RX in this case) be sorted out first? How is it that they are allowed to exist and operate and the affiliates are the ones who get punished? Is it because of the registrar they use? Or the hosting? How do they get away with it? Maybe people using the same registrar as 4RX may be able to avoid such things as whats happened here (rightly or wrongly)?

Again - the point is, this isn't a straight forward case. It opens up many more questions and once again highlights how little power we have as domain investors. From ICANN to white house officials, to local and national authorities as well as big companies and organisations - they all seem to be able to pick & choose what they want and take it away without applying rules as they would in general to/for other businesses in general. No warnings, no notices, no fair play really.

 

[Erdy]

The issue here is not whether it is right to take down illegal online drug stores. Of course this is the right thing. But the way they are doing it is wrong.

Just because registrars might have the power to suspend domains doesn't make it right and doesn't mean domainers should just sit and watch it. Things might get much worse. In the future some other domains might be taken down by the music industry because they have links to mp3 files or links to other websites who have mp3 files.

I will give you an example. Somebody found a few mp3 files on a amateur website and reported it to a copyright protection organisation that protects the interest of recording companies. They had an agreement with registrars and the site was taken down.

You might say, "Yeah yeah take them down. It is the right thing to do." The problem is those mp3 files were copyright free. The site owner was an amateur musician and he recorded the files himself. In total 4000 sites were taken down because they had links to other websites that have mp3 files. They didn't even host the files themselves.

Youtube.com, lastfm.com and myspace.com were among the sites that were banned by the music industry. The ban was applied both as a DNS ban and IP ban. The domains were banned at DNS level so that no matter to what IP you connect them (whereever you host them) those IP's don't connect to the domain. Also an IP ban was applied. This is a real life story and it happened and still happens in Turkey. What is worse is that those domains are made unusable forever. Even if they expire and are picked by somebody else the domains don't work because of the DNS ban.

I always thought something like this would only happen in the developing countries. However the case is actually surprisingly similar to what happens now in the U.S. Here we have an organisation that protects the interest of the pharmacy industry and they decide what sites should be taken down. Tomorrow other industries might follow.

What happens if you lose a domain because you forwarded it to another site or because somebody posted links to other sites? This happened a few years ago too. Godaddy took down the SecLists.Org website because somebody posted youtube passwords.
You can read more here: NoDaddy.Com - Exposing the Many Reasons Not to Trust GoDaddy with Your Domain Names

Other domains might be suspended because of online gambling which is legal in countries those gambling businesses are established.
Ky. court tells online gambling owners to show up - BusinessWeek
The Kentucky gambling domain case is very disturbing because you apply a local law to a website from anywhere in the world and then seize the domains. This is not right.

There is also the risk of losing domains to UDRP which gets worse with time. Somebody recently lost lost "emusique.com" because the panelist decided it is confusingly similar to "emusic.com".
WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2010-0131

The domainers always get screwed no matter what the dispute is. Looking at some of the posts in this thread I wonder if they deserve it.

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

In every business or business enterprise, there are rules to be followed. Heck, when we had a fire in our house, we decided to expand the laundry area. We had to pay for permits (over $450.00). Had we failed to do so, the city could have demanded that we tear down the addition.

Every year, we must pay taxes on our home. Guess what happens if we fail to do so? A tax lien is placed on our property and the house is eventually confiscated.

What happens if I grow pot in my backyard? If I'm caught, my property can be confiscated.

The bottom line: if you operate out of the law, even unknowingly, there will be consequences.

And OP decided to go into one of the most abused areas of the internet: illegal prescription drugs.

I believe that, like it or not, registrars are going to shut down sites first and ask questions later. Get used to it. The U.S. government simply got tired of watching abuses occur on the web and decided to step in.

First and foremost, registrars are going to watch out for their own interests, not ours.

This biz has proven time and again that it can't regulate itself.

Welcome to the brave new world.

*

 

[Kate]

Here we have an organisation that protects the interest of the pharmacy industry and they decide what sites should be taken down.

Bingo.

The Kentucky gambling domain case is very disturbing because you apply a local law to a website from anywhere in the world and then seize the domains. This is not right.

Same as above. Politicians are protecting 'certain' interests because they are on the payroll of 'certain' industry lobbies. In the case of KY, their own interest, and not that of the public.
Likewise Uncle Sam has been undermining Canadian pharmacies for a long time. They are proving cheaper products beyond the clutches of Uncle Sam. You have to read between the lines, under the guise of protecting the public there is lots of hypocrisy and BS :gl:

 

[RicoShay]

The U.S. government simply got tired of watching abuses occur on the web and decided to step in.

Yeah, sure. When it starts affecting their pockets of course they'll "step in".

Get used to it.

That sure is one way.. one attitude, unfortunately also the attitude of millions more. just sit back and let em do what they want. they made the rules so we just gotta live by it... right?

Well, as powerless as I am - I don't condone such actions. I agree with Erdinc, these small actions starting with pharma sites will surely lead to bigger and worse actions in future. Airing things like this in public is the least we can do, even if it doesn't lead to direct actions from the companies / organisations... at least it lets others make a judgement for themselves should they need to use said companies / organisations. Shutting up and accepting it is not going to do any good.

 

[Erdy]

If namepros was not over concerned about advertisement income from registrars and if it was more concerned about domainer's interest then we would see some organised protests. There was never anything like this at namepros even on other issues where there was much more clear injustice.

Domainers have some power too. You can put some content on the landing page protesting those suspensions or you could forward your domain to such a site where this protest would be organised. With such a big community it isn't difficult to put together 100.000 domains for a one day protest.

---------- Post added at 02:40 AM ---------- Previous post was at 02:25 AM ----------

If domain owners continue to be sheep what is going to happen is those organisations that represent certain industries are going to make deals with the registrars. Today it is legitscript, tomorrow it will be some other organisation from music industry or fashion or whatever. The registrars are not making too much money from domains. They are looking for alternative income. They will take certain amount of money for each suspension.

The details of the agreement between legitscript and Enom are unclear. According the following article at the beginning Enom wasn't willing to do what they asked for. Moniker disagreed too.
SecuringPharma - Obama seeks action on online pharmacies domain names

But then suddenly they turned around and made a deal as explained here:
LegitScript - LegitScript Welcomes Agreement with eNom (DemandMedia)

 

[Ms Domainer]

*

Sorry, but LOL.

Domainers are just as bad as politicians and registrars. They act only in self-interest. Get out the pitchforks! Storm the Whitehouse!

You register pharma, gambling (I have a few), or TM domains, you take your chances that someone more powerful will take them away, especially if you're scamming or selling illegal prescription drugs on them, even as an afilliate.

In this case, the government is right, whether or not it is acting in self interest or in public interest. There is NO guarantee of quality control on an illegal pharma site. You could be taking outdated meds, sugar pills, or even worse. You think these offshore sites care about your health or erection?

I think not.

They care about their bottom line, nothing more.

*

 

[Erdy]

These are some of the domains the pharma industry wants to be suspended:

www.drugshome.name Directi
www.pain-relief.name Directi
www.drugstores.name GoDaddy
www.steroids.name GoDaddy
www.generic-pills.name Key-Systems
www.infection.name Key-Systems

source:www.legitscript.com/blog/124

I don't have anything against them shutting down the websites. This is an issue to be dealt with by the hosting company. However suspending a domain because of it's content is overreach. And giving the decision making power to an industry organisations that represent the bigger companies is wrong.

Let's say you have a domain like cheaphandbags.com and it has a mini site with ebay links. How would you feel if they suspend your domain arguing that you are selling or supporting the sale of fake handbags? Some generic domains could be suspended along with the usual buy-louis-vuitton.com type rubbish domains.

This is going to spread to other industries. I'm sure Godaddy is looking forward to cutting a deal with various industry representers.

 

[DU]

The issue here is not whether it is right to take down illegal online drug stores. Of course this is the right thing. But the way they are doing it is wrong.

The correct way being? Either it is the right thing or a domainer is being screwed - you are kind of hedging your bets here

I will give you an example. Somebody found a few mp3 files on a amateur website and reported it to a copyright protection organisation that protects the interest of recording companies. They had an agreement with registrars and the site was taken down.

You might say, "Yeah yeah take them down. It is the right thing to do." The problem is those mp3 files were copyright free. The site owner was an amateur musician and he recorded the files himself.

Is this a real life example? The only one I found was taken down by he Hosting provider - which, in itself, was a ridiculous thing to do.

Other domains might be suspended because of online gambling which is legal in countries those gambling businesses are established.
Ky. court tells online gambling owners to show up - BusinessWeek
The Kentucky gambling domain case is very disturbing because you apply a local law to a website from anywhere in the world and then seize the domains. This is not right.

I think its generally accepted that this is not going to be a precedent. It's a rather odd case though that went to the court of Appeals and then the Kentucky Supreme court (current position is that they can take the domains I think).. though the United Kingdom has said they can't take .co.uk domains so there!

There is also the risk of losing domains to UDRP which gets worse with time. Somebody recently lost lost "emusique.com" because the panelist decided it is confusingly similar to "emusic.com".
WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2010-0131

This is an easy one to find flaws in. EMUSIC is a TM in France. So EMUSIQUE would be confusing in France. It's also not a generic... but that I don't think would have done it....but add in:

"After acquiring the Disputed Domain Name he then proceeded on an unsolicited basis to offer it to the Complainant for USD 25,000 and when this offer was not accepted, dropped his offer to USD 21,000, finally threatening to sell it to a third party if his offer was not accepted."

It's clearly bad faith, and must be confusing enough for him to have offered it.

The domainers always get screwed no matter what the dispute is. Looking at some of the posts in this thread I wonder if they deserve it.

The overwhelming issue is one of proper and consistent regulation. With so many people using the internet for illegal, borderline legal, unintentionally illegal, legal AND illegal based on jurisdiction, and legal its hard to regulate in a proper and consistent manner WITHOUT clear and consistent GLOBAL regulations.

Most of us will NOT be involved in legal issues; however, I think as a collective, everyone has a stake in the game and DOES care about how regulation is occurring. But the regulation is happening already through natural progression. I keep saying the internet is changing and this is one of the items that is "forcing" the change.

The internet is going to shift to a new internet where "we protect the masses from the masses for the masses" - that's how I describe it. Large companies are going to self-censor and USE that as a method of segregating and separating for the benefit of all.

It's not APPS that will change the internet, it's ACCESS.

In a way, I think everyone would agree that we need regulation to protect OUR interest and not realize that, ultimately, that regulation does not. Have you ever wondered why the Prescription drug market IS the way it is? Have you ever looked at what the WTO is actually doing, for example? Its for YOUR protection.

We all WANT Trademark laws except when they get in OUR way

//Good Post by the Way.

 

[solokkhz]

I guess we all need to start selling... What should we sell then if everything is going to be regulated?

I guess ebay will regulate auctions, amazon will be the only one who is allowed to sell books. ho shit, Sedo will be the only company to auction domains...

Get real, all these rules and TOS only keep the rich man richer, The American government, for ages regulate their money flow by making outrages laws to shut off every one that is not a "Under the table" tax payer (off shore pharmacies etc...).

 

[MicroGuy]

An online pharmacy saved "my friends" life.

He needed a prescription for Diltigesic (diltiazem 2%) really bad. He is now self-cured. Also, "my friend" is in the process of another order for this stuff: Nasodren® for sinusitis treatment - Product Information

If you're careful, these services can improve the overall quality of life.

 

[Domagon]

Get real, all these rules and TOS only keep the rich man richer, The American government, for ages regulate their money flow by making outrages laws to shut off every one that is not a "Under the table" tax payer (off shore pharmacies etc...).

Spot on. :tu: That's exactly the underlying motivation for eNom suspending the domain, and for Kentucky suspending domains outside of its jurisdiction...

Money talks and those with it most often get what they want ... if states, such as Kentucky, contend they can regulate domains registered from outside their state merely based on in-state use, then why don't state's interest usury rate laws apply to all credit cards used within a state? Amazingly, that issue went to the Supreme Court ... and yep, they ruled in favor of the banks. Surprise :bah: :td:

Rambling on there, but there's a poster here (won't mention names ) who basically has the view that laws are in place for noble reasons and must be followed with little to no question ...

But one should question all laws, because most are for the benefit of the rich - often their interests happen to align with that of the population, so many people incorrectly assume most laws in general are made for their benefit when in reality it's usually all about the money, such as with pharmaceutical regulations that restrict offshore and internet sales.

And getting back to the particular domain in question. The technical way it was suspended is very different - it was not suspended by the webhost nor due to a court order (there was none), but rather put on "clientHold" by the registrar on its own accord - that's highly unusual, and the "clientHold" status makes transfer out to another registrar far more difficult, potentially requiring litigation to get the domain released.

The path many registrars are taking is a very bad one for free of speech and expression. And appears the worst is yet to come - those with potentially risky sites (ie. be it pharma sales, herbal products, medicinal cannabis, activism sites, etc.), plan accordingly...

Such as choosing the registrar carefully (ie. imho, to start with avoid NameCheap and eNom) and have contingencies in place, such as many on-line pirated movie trading places do - often they lose their domains, and yet many times are back almost right away under a new domain, which is widely promoted through alternative channels, such as Facebook, Twitter, search engines, and private contact lists.

For as bad as the Network Solutions days were before ICANN, NSI typically only put domains on hold by court order and not on a whim.

ICANN should forbid registrars from placing any domain in suspension / hold status without a court order, and to emphasize registrars are there to register domains not to police the internet.

Ron

---------- Post added at 02:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:06 PM ----------

P.S. I see this thread has been moved to "Warnings & Alerts". This issue extends way beyond NameCheap and eNom ... please move this thread back to "Domain Name Discussion" - thanks!

Ron

 

[Erdy]

I agree with Ron. This topic should be moved to "Domain Name Discussion" and the title could be changed to something more generic like "Pharma domains suspended by registrars"

Edit: Industry news is also a good section.
The thing is there is a real danger many registrars might start making deals with some organisations to get paid for suspending domains.

 

[Kate]

I would also add that Enom is a zealous registrar when it comes to enforcing silly and unfair US laws:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/04/us/04bar.html?_r=1

Every citizen is an enemy of the state. It could be your turn one day.

 

[vc]

THE MOST ASININE thing about this is that 4RX.com is STILL UP. :lol:

I guess that's the difference between a $10 registrar and a $25 one

 

[NodeWideLLC]

I am surprised "enetwork" Richard Kirkendall has not responded to this post as he usually responds to most NameCheap related posts on the internet.

 

[Domagon]

I am surprised "enetwork" Richard Kirkendall has not responded to this post as he usually responds to most NameCheap related posts on the internet.

Or maybe he has in a matter of speaking ... this thread, despite days of interesting discussion, was suddenly moved from the highly visible "Domain Name Discussion" to the distant "Warnings & Alerts" backwater.

Ron

 

[jwdomain]

Righty's are all about the "free market" till it nips them in the butt; then its time to regulate against the small guy fast and furious. Just another example of our new "United States of Corporate America".

 

[exponent]

In my opinion, eNom is a poorly managed company that cares little about customers. If you really want to know why, I can tell you about the multi-thousand domain portolio I co-owned (and subsequently lost) due to those idiots.

 

[NodeWideLLC]

And the sad thing is NameCheap is a registrar and fails to start acting like a registrar instead of a reseller. Honestly the day NameCheap decides to begin registering domains itself and not through Enom I just see problems when that day comes... I think Enom will make lots of problems because they will lose a large chunk of their revenue if NameCheap jumps ship.

 

[sunday silence]

Does this mean 4rx.com is going to be shut down soon as well? I mean they are a .com presumably under US control so...?