Labeled as information in Domain Industry News, started by James Iles, Mar 4, 2021
You nailed it.
Yeah, I hear you. I've moved most of domains already. However, I will say that finding out whether there was another motive in this case, is critical in preventing this from occurring again. Was he targeted or was it purely coincidence that a somewhat controversial, right leaning, gun supporting, non-woke domain investor with millions of dollars worth of domains was targeted? I sure hope that's not the case. Perhaps GoDaddy simply has enforced their really shitty TOS on other (smaller) domain investors in similar cases that we're not privy to.
So if this ends up going to Hollywood, which actress gets casted as the most bad one? 🍿
Brent should complain or against GD in USA , then GD probably will defend themself in India when Puneet sue GD India , why GD decided to lock brent’s domain names that not registered with GD India , also not managed or hosted in India. Is it legal action or just a temporary protection with deadline limited ?
As I said earlier, we can come to all of this some day later.
Our focus for now SHOULD only be on pushing Godaddy to do the right thing.
I can't see any reason why Godaddy can't do what Namecheap did besides them having an Indian presence which other registrars don't.
I'm pretty sure this thread is contributing to that noble cause.
I agree, which is precisely why I even bothered to question whether another motive was involved. Also, I'm not a lawyer, but I'd love for a lawyer to chime in here, because a company merely having a presence or legal entity in India should not justify why an American based company is able to lock down an American owned domain portfolio as a result of lawsuit stemming from India.
The difference might be centered in GoDaddy having unwound a $30,000 charge from Mr. Oxley's credit card for the renewal of Mr. Agarwals personal domains.
It's pretty clear that either Judge or Brent's lawyer don't understand exactly how thing work with digital assets and especially domains...also, the judge can't understand why is godaddy involved and I'm pretyy sure than neither godaddy doesn't know why they are involved, exclding their own stupidity. I can bet that Rob from epik, dynadot, namesilo and namecheap guys had a big party last night, knowing that they could not harm godaddy all of them together as bad as godaddy's legal department in this case.
Maybe should help Lisa, from godaddy legal department by send her a few thousands emails from namepros members here, so that she should understand that she can't lock a domain because of a complain, she needs to wait for a court order at the end of the case. Looks like @Paul Nicks and @Joe Styler can't deliver deliver her a simple message like this.
Yet Godaddy is choosing to cause additional harm to the victim by locking down his domans, including domains that were never associated with this case. It's utterly bizarre.
On a completely different note, where are all the other well known (larger) investors on this topic? I've seen one or two over at the thedomains.com, but I presume we'll soon be seeing Elliot's take over at domaininvesting.com? Or do most larger investors wish to remain "neutral" on this issue for varying reasons and/or perks/relationships they may currently have with GoDaddy?
I think in 17, where Mr Agarwal threatens Oxley about how he will feel when the domain will be in his account but he will not be the owner SHOULD be enough for courts to mark this as frivolous.
Did Mr Agarwal have access to Oxley's CC due to previous transactions?
It could be, but they were not thinking that this will become pubic sooner or later and that nobody will feel safe, knowing that they can do the same every time they want? It could be a way for them to stop the bleeding, just ask some guys like Puneet to fill a few complains about a few thousands domains each and they will lock them for unlimited time, even auction them at one point to make some extra revenue in bad times.
Probably he knows somebody at godaddy India, knowing exactly that he could lock his domains. Yes, it seems that he had his cc details, paying for renewals and some .in domains, but that doesn't give him the right to use the card for whatever he wants, without a explicit approval.
Well, if he had access to Oxley's CC than it does establish some sort of relationship between him and Oxley.
These questions will and should be asked later though.
I also think he pulled it off with a lot of shrewdness, high chance domains would still be unlocked if he had filed a complain against Oxley and not Godaddy India.
I support that.
that basically was the last time
I considered having domains with godaddy
they have no excuses to further lock the domains
The only way I can see Oxley getting a quick relief is hiring competent lawyers and getting an injunction against Godaddy US.
I believe a court ruling against GD US should surpass ruling over one of its subsidiary.
Frivolous to Mr. Oxley, sure. But it appears Mr. Oxley was requesting to force GoDaddy to unlock the domains, which it appears GoDaddy had been <served? or ordered?> to lock due to <some ruling?> or <to GoDaddy India being served despite Oxley not being served?> in India with GoDaddy India named as a defendant?
Thus, GoDaddy had to require Mr. Oxley to obtain a court order demanding the domains be unlocked? And the Texas judge wasn't comfortable ruling Oxley v. GoDaddy, when the case the judge was presiding over was Oxley V Argawal. Seeing how, if Agawal wins in India, and somehow is awarded the locked domains instead of a monetary judgement, then GoDaddy is required to safeguard the domains to be able to <push? or hold as collateral?> to Mr. Argawal, should he succeed in Indian court?
Maybe Oxley never got the notice because he isn't a defendent as the case by Mr Agarwal is against Godaddy India.
I hope this works out for Brent but it seems like a big mess that keeps growing bigger.
I said it before, he can ask whatever he wants, he can settle this between them through a commercial case. My problem is with godaddy. So, if tomorrow I have a disagreement with a memeber here and he make's a complain in court that he helped me get those domains, without any proof and send's the complain number to godaddy, they will lock my domains just because they received a complain? This is absurd and godaddy made the worst decision here. I can bet that the guys doing the scams with high offers and appraisal scams from Japan and Israel will stop doing that and start doing thousands of complains for thousands of domains, because they know they have a higher chance of success, because of godaddy's incompetence.
I don't think that godaddy was served, because when Brent was asking if there is a court order to lock the domains, they replied that they don't really need a court order, a complain will be enough. Also, in my country no judge will issue a seize of anything at the beginning of the case, it's not normal and I don't think that the judge has the legal ground to do that. He can't do that only after everything is done.It's like I will sue Amazon that they own me $1 or $1 million and in the minute I make the complain, the judge will seize amazon properties for years to cover everything, it's not legal in Europe and I'm pretty sure it's not legal anywhere else.
From the India court order:
@boker -- If you don't think GoDaddy India was served, would you agree that it's easier and/or more affordable for Mr. Agrawal to serve GoDaddy India in India than it would be for Mr. Agrawal to serve Mr. Oxley in Texas?
Further, if the intended result was to cast maximum damage on Mr. Oxley, and hope to force him into submission, then what true benefit does Mr. Agarwal have to serve Mr. Oxley, so long as the domains remain locked as long as GoDaddy remains a party to the suit, which will remain pending, and Mr. Oxleys domains locked, until Mr. Oxley is served, and the case is able to process.
Of course it will have been easier to serve godaddy India, but the case is against both, godaddy India and Brent, so he needs to serve both of them and to do that, he needs an Hague Certificate and if it took almost a year for Brent to receive one and he spent a few thousands in the mentime I don;t think that Puneet could have done it in days and weeks and I don't think that his intention was to do that. His intention was to start the case, make the complain hopping that godaddy, for some reson will lock the domains and he can blackmail Brent until he manage to unlock them. Again, looks like godaddy is acting in bad faith or through incompetence, either way they look like a second hand company right now because of this.
The respondent's repsonse in the US suit is crazy.
Since he replied there, atleast, he can't say he is not aware of it.
Then, in his response, he says "Myself do not fall under the jurisdiction of United States court".
Followed by a notice of setting. But it's not finished. Brent replied with 3 status report.
The judge should now respond to that? Or did he already and courtlistener is not up-to-date?
If GD doesn't move, Could Brent sue GD in the US ?
Funny how he thinks he doesn't fall under US court jurisdiction but Brent falls under Indian court jurisdiction.
Separate names with a comma.