information Brent Oxley Loses Access to Create.com, Plus Millions of Dollars Worth of His Domains

[James Iles]

Brent Oxley, the founder of HostGator, has been accruing a portfolio of ultra-premium domain names since he sold his hosting company for close to $300 million in 2013.

With purchases such as Give.com for $500,000, Broker.com for $375,000, and Texas.com for $1,007,500, Oxley has spent millions of dollars over the past few years accumulating this collection. According to his website, the portfolio is worth more than $25 million.

Oxley has now, however, lost access to a proportion of his portfolio

Read the full report on my blog

 

[Embrand]

Reading Oxley's case against Puneet in the Texas court, I have to say it seems like a rather unusual arrangement they had. Puneet would help Oxley get domains and in return partly have Oxley pay his renewal fees for domains at GoDaddy if I read the document correctly:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1785233/gov.uscourts.txsd.1785233.1.0.pdf

 

[The Rover]

Many of the ill informed domainers here are indulging in bad language against GoDaddy. Let me tell everyone here that I have no relationship with GoDaddy and whatever GoDaddy has done or is doing or will do in immediate future , is all according to the legal laws of the respected country. GoDaddy is following the laws and GoDaddy has not committed any mistake in these disputes. They have not taken anyone's side and they are impartial to everyone till yet.
On the one hand Brent sir fight cases in india and usa through legal means and on the other hand tries a pressure tactic to compell GoDaddy to do illegal things.
Shall I tell everyone here what did you ask me to do last year against GoDaddy. Shall i post the screenshot here. Shall i tell everyone here how were you stalking top most executive of GoDaddy last year for fulfilling your illegal demands and when GoDaddy is not giving up against your pressure tactics, you are now trying to defame GoDaddy and it's ceo by linking them to their indian ethnic roots. In your usa most of the ceo of top companies are indians. I sometimes feel are you alright Brent sir. Don't make me open my mouth as the case is subjudic

Well who the hell are you to question me. I am not obligated to respond to u.

Your "point" that you have no relationship with GoDaddy or that you're not seeking social justice is 100% irrelevant. GoDaddy is simply using this as an opportunity to push their own agendas. You're essentially GoDaddy's convenient little muse, either way. However, I suspect that GoDaddy is in the process of discovering the repercussions of arrogantly injecting wokeness into business.

 

[Samer]

Your "point" that you have no relationship with GoDaddy or that you're not seeking social justice is 100% irrelevant.GoDaddy is simply using this as an opportunity to push their own agendas. You're essentially GoDaddy's muse, either way.

Sad, prioritize courts outside court of law which Godaddy is located in.
They locked domains of a client they've had for a while, known well to them and community.

Hope someone links this thread at Aman's next Shareholder meeting.

Thanks Aman, love to discover new (frivolous) ways have Godaddy Registrar lock against you

 

[Future Sensors]

Sad, prioritize courts outside court of law which Godaddy is located in.
They locked domains of a client they've had for a while, known well to them and community.

Hope someone links this thread at Aman's next Shareholder meeting.

Thanks Aman, love when discover new (frivolous) ways have your Registrar take your life's work, (priceless work...) I dont care if it's

It's actually not a bad idea at all @Samer to ask the top holders of the NYSE:GDDY stock how they feel about this.

 

[Samer]

It's actually not a bad idea at all @Samer to ask the top holders of the NYSE:GDDY stock how they feel about this.

They dont care as long as

We'll see! It has to demonstrate an ability to affect the bottom line of this behemoth.

If learning a new way to lose your domain, (via lock) and land in Purgatory not knowing future; How is this right? Isnt this why we pay ICANN and the UDPR

Majority Godaddy customers U.S., Riiight??
It should bother them

 

[Future Sensors]

They dont care as long as

We'll see! It has to demonstrate an ability to affect the bottom line of this behemoth.

They care about their investments. Just like we do.

 

[Samer]

They care about their investments. Just like we do.

I nominate you to speak at the meeting!

Just kidding! Brent! Buy 1 GDDY share so you have rights to call in; i think that's how it works.

Look at these names.... how u not have access CEO ultimately decide "Yes" or "No" Amazing..

 

[The Rover]

I have no means of assessing the validity of claims. Neither does Godaddy. That is why there needs to be, for the sake of everyone in this business, more than claims to cause this kind of action. (Locking of domains).

Exactly. This is literally the most important aspect of this entire dumpster fire. Which goes right back to the question of "why" GoDaddy is doing this to Brent in the first place. Scams are a dime a dozen, they happen daily. However, GoDaddy's actions here (locking domains without a verifiable reason nor even a court order) is unprecedented and beyond dangerous.

 

[Samer]

Remember! @jberryhill is my favorite lawyer.

Come on, John! Take this guy up, Pro bono ; )

 

[boker]

Reading Oxley's case against Puneet in the Texas court, I have to say it seems like a rather unusual arrangement they had. Puneet would help Oxley get domains and in return partly have Oxley pay his renewal fees for domains at GoDaddy if I read the document correctly:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1785233/gov.uscourts.txsd.1785233.1.0.pdf

Finally, some specific details. So, from my understanding, they had some kind of agreement for a few months, that Brent will pay his renewals and they start fighting after that because one wanted more and the other one didn't wanted to pay anymore. What I don't understand is that the contract between Brent and godaddy is a special contract or is just by signing their agreement when you open an account? Also, I understand that the plaintiff made the complain in Indian court to implicate godaddy India, what I don't understand is why godaddy/godaddy India will lock domains just if a complain was made, without a proper court order.

 

[Samer]

Finally, some specific details. So, from my understanding, they had some kind of agreement for a few months, that Brent will pay his renewals and they start fighting after that because one wanted more and the other one didn't wanted to pay anymore. What I don't understand is that the contract between Brent and godaddy is a special contract or is just by signing their agreement when you open an account? Also, I understand that the plaintiff made the complain in Indian court to implicate godaddy India, what I don't understand why godaddy/godaddy India will lock domains just if a complain was made, without a proper court order.

Some think Godaddy is making an ideological statement since they go against Brent’s seemingly outspoken views...

Also: See what did to AR15.com no warning

Me? Personally, i think it’s part of this notion as part strategy prioritize their international; (VERY WEAK out USA)

Either way, doesnt look good.
Thanks to all contributed! Keep pray for Brent

Samer

 

[Embrand]

Finally, some specific details. So, from my understanding, they had some kind of agreement for a few months, that Brent will pay his renewals and they start fighting after that because one wanted more and the other one didn't wanted to pay anymore. What I don't understand is that the contract between Brent and godaddy is a special contract or is just by signing their agreement when you open an account? Also, I understand that the plaintiff made the complain in Indian court to implicate godaddy India, what I don't understand why godaddy/godaddy India will lock domains just if a complain was made, without a proper court order.

It certainly is Hollywood material. There is even an allegation of using domain money on a prostitute...

 

[The Rover]

what I don't understand is why godaddy/godaddy India will lock domains just if a complain was made, without a proper court order.

The "why" should be crystal clear by now. GoDaddy likely receives baseless, scamming, crap flings like this daily, and they normally ignore them. However, GoDaddy saw an opportunity to go after a non-woke, tank and hunting ranch owning Texan with millions of dollars in domains, and they covertly jumped on it. Not surprisingly GoDaddy is using "complicated legalese" as their excuse and cover for doing so. It's what all social justice tech companies do any time they're called out for censorship and overreach.

What I don't understand is how any of this is shocking to anyone.

 

[boker]

It certainly is Hollywood material. There is even an allegation of using domain money on a prostitute...

Prostitute and everything else is just popcorn stuff, for me doesn't matter if he used it for prostitute or helping hungry children, if he was not allowed to use that money, than is still the same thing. I still don't get it how/why the domains were locked and what legal ground can godaddy legal department invoke for their move to lock the domains.

 

[bmugford]

Can we leave out the accusatory political innuendos please?

In this case I really don't care about the politics of Brent. It is not relevant.

It is simply about the actions taken by GoDaddy and how they pertain to registrant rights as a domain owner.

Brad

 

[The Rover]

Can we leave out the accusatory political innuendos please?

In this case I really don't care about the politics of Brent. It is simply about the actions taken by GoDaddy and how pertain to registrant rights as a domain owner.

Brad

Strongly disagree. The "why" matter does it not? Confront the "why" and you stop it from happening again. Sweeping this under the rug and leaving it to "GoDaddy is careless and merely just dropped the ball" doesn't cut it.

 

[bmugford]

Strongly disagree. The why matter does it not? Confront the "why" and you stop it from happening again.

Cool, go ahead and present your evidence then.

Until then, you are basically presenting some conspiracy theory because you "believe" it.

Do you have evidence to back this up?

Brad

 

[The Rover]

Cool, go ahead and present your evidence then.

Until then, you are basically presenting some conspiracy theory because you "believe" it.

Brad

Labeling people as conspiracy theorists is literally why GoDaddy knows they can get away with this shit in the first place. You do know that, right? You act as if Brent has never been politically attacked before. But keep believing that this was just random "carelessness" on GoDaddy's behalf.

 

[bmugford]

Labeling people as conspiracy theorists is literally why GoDaddy knows they can get away with this shit in the first place. You do know that, right? You act as if Brent has never been politically attacked before. But keep believing that this was just carelessness on GoDaddy's behalf.

You are making the accusation. The burden is on you.

You can believe whatever you want, but no one should accept "belief" as evidence.

Brad

 

[boker]

The only explanation could be is that the complain was made in hindi and that the guys from godaddy India legal department made the decision, based on their local rules and they just sent the decision to godaddy US, without giving them any reason and the US department didn't asked further information, that could be the only explanation but even if this is what happened, godaddy is still not innocent in all this story, you are guilty for any decision made by any of your departments. I can't understand how a guy like @Paul Nicks or @Joe Styler, first time when they heard the story, didn't asked a simple question like' there is a court order or not?' Also, to keep a customer in the dark, ignoring his emails for months, that should raise even more questions.

 

[The Rover]

You are making the accusation. The burden is on you.

No one should accept "belief" as evidence.

Brad

What proof are you talking about? I presented a very likely possibility which I personally suspect is true. What proof do you need that the CEO of GoDaddy is a leftist SJW with an agenda? Go to his twitter, dude. It's all right there. What proof do you need that Brent's views don't align with GoDaddy? You can't sit there with a straight face and not at the very least suggest that this isn't a at least a possibility. To utterly ignore this as a possibility is just as bad as ignoring any other fact patterns on the case. You're acting as if Brent is just a typical domainer, and there's NO WAY that he'd ever be attacked politically, when in fact he has been in the past.

As for proof, stick to asking asking GoDaddy and the guy in India for proof on why they did what they did rather than grill a fellow domainer who's equally pissed off that GoDaddy is very likely attempting to make an example out of Brent. When they fail to offer you a single reason that justifies their actions, perhaps you'll begin to question their motive. Motive matters. A lot.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Reading Oxley's case against Puneet in the Texas court, I have to say it seems like a rather unusual arrangement they had. Puneet would help Oxley get domains and in return partly have Oxley pay his renewal fees for domains at GoDaddy if I read the document correctly:

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.txsd.1785233/gov.uscourts.txsd.1785233.1.0.pdf

9. In February 2018, Agarwal, aware of Oxley’s identity through HostGator, initiated contact with Oxley through an email offering to help Oxley in the sale of his premium domain names.

10. From April 2018 through August 2018, Agarwal assisted Oxley in the purchase of three domain names: Devote.com, Demolish.com, and Admirer.com. In connection with each purchase, the parties would negotiate a commission for Agarwal in the form of either a direct payment to Agarwal or a payment to GoDaddy.com, LLC (“GoDaddy”), the domain registrar used by the parties in this matter, for renewal fees for domain names owned by Agarwal personally. No written contract establishing an exclusive brokerage relationship was ever entered into between the parties

11. Despite no further commissions being due and no contractual obligation requiring Oxley to do so, on or around August 26, 2018, Agarwal requested that Oxley assist him in renewing more domain names owned by Agarwal. In response, Oxley agreed to advance $5,000 to Agarwal for the requested renewals and asked for an accounting of all transactions between the parties as of that date. Agarwal responded that the commissions for the purchases of Devote.com, Demolish.com, and Admirer.com and the $5,000 advance constituted all of the transactions between the parties as of that date.

12. In October 2018, Oxley, in an attempt to help Agarwal garner some commissions, requested that Agarwal submit a bid on behalf of Oxley for the purchase of Memo.com, Flute.com, and Piano.com despite Memo.com and Piano.com having been previously offered for sale to Oxley not as a result of any efforts by Agarwal. However, due to the high price that was received in response to Oxley’s bid, Oxley and Agarwal agreed that, if Oxley purchased the domain names, the commission due on purchase (approximately $31,000) (the “Oxley Commission”) would be paid to Oxley.

13. Nonetheless, seeking to build a side business venture with Agarwal, Oxley, upon purchasing Memo.com, Flute.com, and Piano.com, instructed Agarwal to take the Oxley Commission and use it to purchase premium Indian domain names, which would be subject to Oxley’s pre-approval and held in Oxley’s account with GoDaddy. Any proceeds from the sale of such domain names would then be split 50/50 between the parties.

14. Despite this understanding and Oxley’s express instruction to Agarwal not to use the Oxley Commission for Agarwal’s personal needs, Agarwal admitted to Oxley that Agarwal had spent the Oxley Commission on family debts, taxes, and personal excesses, including, but not limited to, drugs, alcohol, a luxury hotel, and the services of a prostitute. A true and correct copy of the Facebook Messenger chat transcripts containing such admission is attached hereto as Exhibit 1.

15. From December 2018 through February 2019, Agarwal, now out of money and desperate not to return to his home in Alwar, continued to contact Oxley, requesting a monthly salary for his living expenses in Delhi as well as renewal payments for his domain names in exchange for attempting to broker deals for the purchase and sale of Oxley’s domains. Oxley refused

16. Thereafter, beginning with messages sent to Oxley in late February 2019, Agarwal’s rhetoric escalated, blaming Oxley for failures to pay his rent and renew domain names, suggesting that all of his renewal fees could be paid if only Oxley would provide him with the CVV to Oxley’s credit card which Agarwal had previously told Oxley that he had deleted from his account, and claiming that he would have to have his father sell his factory in order to pay Oxley back for the Oxley Commission.

17. In furtherance of this rhetoric, on July 9, 2019, Agarwal sent a series of messages via Facebook Messenger to Oxley, blaming Oxley for the loss of Agarwal’s domain names due to Oxley’s refusal to advance money to Agarwal not in connection with an earned commission. In the same series of messages, Agarwal also threatened to file a lawsuit against Oxley to “show [Oxley] how it feels when [his] domain will be in [his] account but [he] will not be the owner.” A true and correct copy of this series of messages is attached hereto as Exhibit 2.

18. On or around September 13, 2019, Oxley became aware that Agarwal, without authorization, had charged Oxley’s credit card for renewal of Agarwal’s personal web domains in the amount of $30,000 and contacted GoDaddy who unwound the transaction.

19. As a result of Oxley’s refusal to allow Agarwal to charge $30,000 to his credit card for renewal of Agarwal’s personal domains and to advance money to Agarwal not in connection with an earned commission, Agarwal followed through on his threat from July 9, 2019 and filed suit against Oxley and an Indian affiliate of GoDaddy, GoDaddy India Web Services, Pvt. Ltd. (“GoDaddy India”), in the Alwar District Court in India, Filing No. 858/2019, on November 15, 2019 (the “Indian Litigation”), alleging, without any evidence, that Oxley and Agarwal had entered into an exclusive brokerage agreement pursuant to which Agarwal was owed a commission upon Oxley’s purchase and sale of any domain name and that GoDaddy India was liable for allowing these transactions to occur without Agarwal receiving his commission.

20. However, instead of attempting to obtain jurisdiction over Oxley in India and resolve any issues in court, Agarwal filed the Indian Litigation, naming GoDaddy India as a defendant, solely to induce GoDaddy to lock Oxley’s registered domains, depriving Oxley of the ability to sell or renew any of those domains. A true and correct copy of emails dated April 1, 2020 from Agarwal to Oxley evidencing Agarwal’s threat to employ a similar strategy in filing litigation against GoDaddy in order to lock domains owned by Oxley which are not included in the Indian Litigation is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.

21. In fact, Oxley did not become aware of the Indian Litigation until he contacted GoDaddy by e-mail after logging on to his GoDaddy account on January 9, 2020 to find several of his domains locked. A true and correct copy of this e-mail is attached hereto as Exhibit 4.

22. To this date, more than seven months after the filing of the Indian Litigation, Agarwal has never attempted service on Oxley. A true and correct copy of the case status for the Indian Litigation as of July 7, 2020 is attached hereto as Exhibit 5.

23. Despite no order or injunction ever being issued by the Court presiding over the Indian Litigation, as a direct result of its filing, GoDaddy, pursuant to Section 14 of the Universal Terms of Service Agreement between GoDaddy and Oxley1 , locked the following domain names owned by Oxley: Piano.com, Flute.com, Memo.com, Admirer.com, Darm.com, Devote.com, Demolish.com, Emir.com, Vtok.com, Vandalize.com, LoanTap.com, Advise.com, Message.com, Distribute.com, Detect.com, Jewel.com, Dust.com, Bonjour.com, Viaje.com, CIA.com, Drone.com, Item.com, Valentine.com, Bride.com, Hybrid.com, and Athlete.com (each an “Oxley Domain” and, collectively, the “Oxley Domains”).

24. Since the filing of the Indian Litigation and the locking of the Oxley Domains, Oxley has received offers for the purchase of an Oxley Domain in excess of $5,000,000.00.

25. To this date, Agarwal has continued his efforts to extort Oxley for money2 , including but not limited to threatening to inform animal activists about allegedly unethical treatment of animals on Oxley’s ranch located in Uvalde, Texas. A true and correct copy of the emails containing such threats is attached hereto as Exhibit 6.

26. Pursuant to Section 6 of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “UDRP”) which is incorporated into the terms of the Contract, GoDaddy has not been named a defendant in this lawsuit but has been notified of this Complaint, having every intention to abide by the orders and judgment of this Court. See Internet Corp. for Assigned Names and Numbers, UDRP (Oct. 24, 1999), https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en (“[GoDaddy] will not participate in any way in any dispute between [Oxley] and any party other than [GoDaddy] regarding the registration and use of [the Oxley Domains]. [Oxley] shall not name [GoDaddy] as a party or otherwise include [GoDaddy] in any such proceeding.”). CAUSES OF ACTION COUNT I – TORTIOUS INTERFERENCE WITH CONTRACT

27. Oxley incorporates and re-alleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 26 2 Through his prior history before the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization, Agarwal has gained a reputation for targeting notable individuals and organizations in an attempt to extort them. See, e.g., Administrative Panel Decision, Mr. Sidhartha Mallya v. Mr. Puneet Agarwal, World Intellectual Property Organization Case No. D2014-1262 (October 20, 2014) and Administrative Panel Decision, Facebook Inc. v. Puneet Agarwal, World Intellectual Property Organization as though fully set forth herein.

28. Oxley has a valid and enforceable Contract with GoDaddy which, among other things, allows Oxley to purchase, register, and sell certain domain names, including, but not limited to, the Oxley Domains.

29. At all relevant times, Agarwal was aware of the Contract and, at points, even acted as a broker to assist Oxley in the purchase and registration of domain names with GoDaddy for Oxley’s account.

30. In order to extort Oxley, without any contractual basis whatsoever, Agarwal willfully and intentionally filed the Indian Litigation to induce GoDaddy to lock the Oxley Domains.

31. As a proximate result of the Indian Litigation, GoDaddy – per its rights under the terms of the Contract – has locked the Oxley Domains unless and until it receives a court order lifting the lock on the Oxley Domains.

32. As a result of the wrongful actions taken by Agarwal, Oxley has suffered damages, including, but not limited to, his ability to sell the Oxley Domains despite receipt of bona fide offers, and will continue to do so. WHEREFORE, Oxley respectfully requests that this Court enter judgment in his favor and award him damages in excess of $5,000,000.00, including costs and attorney’s fees, and any other relief this Court deems equitable and just. COUNT II – INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

33. Oxley incorporates and re-alleges the allegations of Paragraphs 1 through 32 as though fully set forth herein.

34. Oxley has a substantial likelihood of success on the merits given Agarwal’s admissions prior to and after the filing of the Indian Litigation and failure/refusal to even attempt service on Oxley in the Indian Litigation for almost seven months.

35. If GoDaddy is not restrained from locking the Oxley Domains, Oxley will be irreparably harmed by not being able to sell the Oxley Domains despite bona fide offers for the same which will uniquely affect the value of the domains and thereby cause irreparable harm to the Oxley Domains.

36. The requested temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction will allow Oxley to protect the value of the Oxley Domains and market the same, which, due to their high value and unique nature, appeal to a limited number of purchasers during the pendency of this action. Thus, the refusal of a bona fide offer for purchase of an Oxley Domain, which Oxley would otherwise accept, will result in damages in the millions of dollars. Agarwal and GoDaddy will suffer no judicially cognizable harm by granting of the requested temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction allowing Oxley to sell the Oxley Domains as neither Agarwal nor GoDaddy has an existing lien upon or an ownership interest in the Oxley Domains. Should Agarwal prevail against Oxley in any fashion, Agarwal’s ability to recover money damages from Oxley will not be impaired.

37. It is in the interests of justice and public interest not to allow Agarwal to extort Oxley, a business owner and operator in this District, by filing litigation in a foreign country designed only to interfere with Oxley’s contractual relationship with GoDaddy and with no intent to pursue its frivolous claims.

38. As Agarwal and GoDaddy will suffer no harm if GoDaddy is restrained or enjoined from locking the Oxley Domains, Oxley respectfully requests that the Court not require any security to support the requested injunctive relief.

39. Nonetheless, Oxley stands ready to post an adequate bond pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(c), should the Court determine that such a bond is warranted.

 

[koolishman]

Can we leave out the accusatory political innuendos please?

In this case I really don't care about the politics of Brent. It is not relevant.

It is simply about the actions taken by GoDaddy and how they pertain to registrant rights as a domain owner.

Brad

True. 100%.

 

[The Rover]

True. 100%.

And how many times has a case like this one, occurred in the past?

Anyone?

 

[koolishman]

And how many times has a case like this one, occurred in the past?

Anyone?

That is no excuse for branding everything as Right and Left.

The case has enough merit on it's own.