discuss Defend HeidiPowell.com against a Bullying Celebrity Thief!

[Slanted]

Hi domainers,

Please take a moment to help defend domain owner rights. The grandmother who owns HeidiPowell.com needs our help. You don't need to spend a penny. Just stand up and say, "This is unacceptable." It will take public pressure outside NamePros. But there are a lot of us; so hopefully we can join forces and spread the word.

Scroll down. There are a few specific things we can do to help. It's urgent.

Some of you know the story already. A grandmother has owned HeidiPowell.com for many years, but a minor TV celebrity has decided that she is the only Heidi Powell in the world who matters. And this arrogant celeb has dragged the original Mrs. Powell through a UDRP and even into bankruptcy court, attempting to take not just her domain but her own NAME from her by force. Truly, it's one of the most reprehensible cases I've ever come across. If we don't defend her, nobody will defend us when we ourselves are targeted.

Background:

Mrs. Powell has been Heidi Powell since her marriage in 1979. Back in 2005, 12 years ago, her husband presented her with the domain HeidiPowell.com as an anniversary gift. It's a developed website where she offers web design services. But it's more than just a site whose name can be changed. To this day, Heidi uses HeidiPowell.com for her email address, which is tied to all her online accounts. So if she loses this domain, it's akin to identity theft.

Then along comes another Heidi Powell – a celebrity fitness trainer who had a short-lived TV show on ABC. ("Celebrity", so they say. I'd never heard of her.) She became Heidi Powell after a 2010 marriage – long after HeidiPowell.com was registered by the rightful owners, Mr. and Mrs. Powell.

Greed and megalomania – it's the usual tale of a spoiled narcissistic brat who feels entitled to confiscate whatever she wants, no matter the damage to us "little people". First came the UDRP. Fortunately, David Weslow – a well respected attorney – stepped forward to defend Heidi pro bono (i.e. free of charge). I think there's a very good chance justice will prevail in the UDRP case, thanks to his efforts.

But Mrs. Powell and her husband are still suffering, and her domain remains in jeopardy. You see, this fitness trainer "star", this usurper, this would-be thief and her lawyers have found another way to attack the rightful Heidi Powell – even while the UDRP case is still in progress. Years ago, Mrs. Powell and her husband experienced some misfortunes and had to file for bankruptcy. Life can be like that. Now, this covetous celeb is arguing that the domain HeidiPowell.com ought to have been declared as a valuable asset during their bankruptcy case years ago. It's absurd, of course. The market value of HeidiPowell.com is negligible except for 1 greedy celebrity who came along later on. I personally prepared a 5-10 page document for David Weslow, citing verifiable data that proves this.

However, the celeb and her lawyers are bribing the trustee with a 5-figure sum to drag Mr. and Mrs. Powell back into bankruptcy court! And legal representation in this bankruptcy case is not provided by David Weslow; he's only handling the UDRP. Far from being free, this additional legal burden will cost Mr. and Mrs. Powell thousands – not to mention stress, time, and damage to their credit and reputation. Obviously, the celeb's strategy is to bleed this humble couple until they give up from exhaustion.

Press Coverage:

From time to time, we hear about domainers requesting financial help. Personally, I'm always very skeptical about those claims because it's easy to exploit people's sympathies. Heidi Powell is not a domainer. What she primarily needs our help with is public pressure. Giving that kind of help is 100% free.

Heidi's case has been written about extensively:

(1) USA Today

http://www.usatoday.com/story/life/...andmother-heidi-powell-over-website/90916602/

(2) The Register

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/09/27/narcissist_heidi_powell_wants_her_dotcom/

(3) DomainNameWire.com

http://domainnamewire.com/2016/09/13/reverse-domain-name-hijacking-alleged-heidipowell-com-lawsuit/

and

http://domainnamewire.com/2016/07/19/heidi-powell-lawsuit/

(4) At NamesCon, David Weslow of Wiley Rein was given the first ever "Lonnie Borck Memorial Award" in recognition of his "exceptional efforts in championing the rights of domain name registrants". Those of us who are members of the ICA – the Internet Commerce Association, which advocates tirelessly for domain owner rights – voted for Mr. Weslow specifically because of this Heidi Powell case.

http://www.dnjournal.com/archive/lowdown/2016/dailyposts/20161219.htm

I was hoping that Heidi's case would get some publicity at NamesCon when David Weslow received the award. However, I understand he wasn't able to attend due to illness.

TAKE ACTION!

Alright, guys. This is where we can make a difference. Get angry! Imagine it's your grandma being dragged into bankruptcy court! Imagine it's your domain being taken away unjustly! Imagine it's costing you thousands and thousands to defend yourself against an arrogant narcissist with deep pockets!

What we can do:

(1) Visit HeidiPowell.com. There's a button on grandma's site, allowing you to tweet directly at this thieving celebrity. Tell her what you think of her. Please no threats. Please no profanity. Remember, we want domain owner rights to be respected and honored. Making threats or using profanity would only give people an excuse to dismiss us. Be professional. But be angry!

(2) Visit the celeb's website:

http://heidipowell.net/contact-me/

Tell her what you think. Again, be polite but firm.

(3) Grandma has a GoFundMe campaign:

https://www.gofundme.com/grandma-bullied-sued-for-her-name

Please leave a comment showing your support. I'm not asking anybody to contribute money. But if you can spare something small – even $1 – it might help show that Mrs. Powell is not alone ... that even total strangers are willing to back an underdog against a bully. If you don't want to donate, that's completely fine. Just leave a comment there. This thieving celeb needs to understand that her reputation is going to suffer if she persists in persecuting Mrs. Powell ... that she will be punching a cactus.

(4) Let's put pressure on ABC, since they created this monster. Maybe if they encounter some bad publicity themselves, they will in turn put pressure on the celebrity usurper to cease and desist:

https://twitter.com/ABCNetwork

Tell ABC what you think. Tell them they ought to be ashamed of themselves for letting Heidi Powell bully a grandmother and steal her property. Be sure to reference Heidi Powell specifically; otherwise ABC won't have a clue what we're talking about.

(5) We all have domainer acquaintances. Please send 3 people a link to this NamePros thread. There's strength in numbers.

(6) Once you've helped out, brag about it! Let other domainers here know that you give a damn. Post a reply in this thread so we can keep it visible. Positive peer pressure, folks! Let's show the world that domainers aren't parasitic cybersquatters. We stand up for property rights.

 

[UltraNames.com]

Tweeted.

 

[ison]

Let's not get off course, please, debating whether I ought to use the word "bribe" or not. The spotlight here ought to be on Heidi Powell's right to keep her own name, HeidiPowell.com, and the injustice of these twin UDRP and bankruptcy cases – whose sole aim is to confiscate property some minor celebrity covets and to which she has no legal right.

My word choice ought not to detract from Grandma Powell's difficult situation. Admittedly, I'm ignorant when it comes to lawyerly stuff. And I appreciate your concern, lest I expose myself to a charge of libel. From the context, I think most people will understand what I mean by "bribe" – not a criminal act but a monetary inducement to act unfairly. In the same sense, people often discuss large election campaign donations – which are legal – as a form of bribery.

Here's the point: Would the trustee be dragging Heidi Powell into bankruptcy court again under normal circumstances? No. Why, then, are they doing it? Because the fitness trainer and her team are dangling a $xx,xxx carrot in front of their noses, provided they do succeed in confiscating HeidiPowell.com.

Whether that's a bribe or not is not important. What's important is recognizing that such persecution is unjust. Honestly, I have no idea whether the trustee is at fault or not. Primarily I blame the people dangling the carrot – i.e. the fitness instructor and her coterie. They're behind the UDRP directly and indirectly behind the bankruptcy case.

This is not lawyerly stuff, and it is very much pertinent to the issue. You are using what now appears to be a blatantly false accusation to build a case against the other Heidi. So, no, we're not getting off course.

A bribe is a criminal offense any way you look at it, and accusing someone of giving and receiving a bribe is no small matter - you could be tarnishing the reputation of some random attorney, notary or local official. 1,047 people have read this thread thus far, and the number will go much higher in the coming days and weeks. Most of the people will leave this thread thinking there is a corrupt trustee somewhere handling this case. What are the chances that some of them might live in the same town with the said trustee? How long before people start casting aspersions on his/her character?

You said you "have no idea whether the trustee is at fault or not," but you are perfectly willing to tarnish his reputation. Why? I have no knowledge of the case, but it is reasonable to assume that the trustee is answerable to Howell's creditors. It's might be a dereliction of duty to ignore a source of income that could pay the creditors - one of which could very well also be a grandmother running a small business.

Another thing. In your opening post, you wrote that the website is a developed one. You did not mention that it was parked for years, and was only developed after fitness trainer Powell rejected grandmother Powell's price of $50,000. Now, it has become an attack page on fitness trainer Powell.

I think the domain rightfully belongs to grandmother Powell, and I believe the UDRP panel and any court will make a decision in favor of her. However, there is a lot of misinformation in this thread, and I cannot in good conscience be a party to that. I also certainly cannot be a party to tarnishing the reputation of a random court-appointed trustee. As such, I am withdrawing my negligible support for this and will deleting my tweet shortly.

 

[Slanted]

No forum thread ever gets by without hostility from somebody. It's 1 reason why people leave the forums, sadly.

"You are using what now appears to be a blatantly false accusation"

Nonsense.

"A bribe is a criminal offense any way you look at it"

Also nonsense. Were I to offer you $10 to delete your post, I would be bribing you. Yet that's 100% legal.

"you could be tarnishing the reputation of some random attorney, notary or local official."

Nope. I explicitly stated that I'm not assessing their actions – only the actions of the celeb fitness trainer and her attroneys. See above.

"Most of the people will leave this thread thinking there is a corrupt trustee somewhere handling this case."

Not if they read what's actually written. See above.

"[It] might be a dereliction of duty to ignore a source of income that could pay the creditors"

Yes, of course. The trustee may be acting innocently and fairly. The trustee is no concern of mine, though you seem obsessed with that angle. Let me remind you what actually matters here. A greedy celeb has offered a substantial monetary reward – which from her vantage point DEFINITELY IS a bribe – in exchange for dragging Grandma Powell into bankruptcy court and depriving Mrs. Powell of her own property and name. That's unjust. If the trustee is an honorable cog in the wheel just doing his/her job, so be it. Who cares?

"In your opening post, you wrote that the website is a developed one."

Yes, because it is.

"You did not mention that it was parked for years, and was only developed after fitness trainer Powell rejected grandmother Powell's price of $50,000."

Heidi Powell (the grandmother) tells me point blank via email: "It’s a lie. We did not ask for, nor ever attempt to sell the domain". She adds: "It’s in the USAToday story as a quote from her attorney. It didn’t happen."

Many domains are parked while they are actively used for email. That, I'm told, was the case here. If you're as concerned about facts as you claim to be, then you will have noticed HeidiPowell.com was forwarding to Mrs. Powell's Facebook page back in 2011:

http://web.archive.org/web/20110207182410/http://heidipowell.com/

Even corporations redirect domains to social media – sometimes after buying the domain for $x,xxx. That's a legitimate form of usage. So is email. So is parking, as every domainer knows. Even doing NOTHING with a domain name is the owner's right.

"Now, it has become an attack page on fitness trainer Powell."

Retaliation in self-defense is appropriate. The fitness trainer has filed a UDRP (which is clearly a case of RDNH) and dragged the grandmother into bankruptcy court. Should she NOT criticize those actions?

"[T]here is a lot of misinformation in this thread, and I cannot in good conscience be a party to that."

Although you seem hell bent on misconstruing the information, your misunderstandings are not my misinformation.

"As such, I am withdrawing my negligible support for this and will deleting my tweet shortly."

You may do whatever you please. Continue domaining with my blessing. Argue with me, if you like picking fights. Defend some distant trustee from nonexistent attacks, if it makes you feel better than defending Mrs. Powell from real persecution. An odd moral stance, but ok.

 

[ison]

<snip>

You made a serious accusation - an accusation which if true, could land people in jail and destroy their reputation. Your accusation of bribery is far, far more serious than the entire issue about the domain, but you don't seem to realize this. In good faith, I asked you to elaborate. You gave a misleading quote, and went for the sympathy card again while even trying to equate a criminal offense with deleting a forum post. You used words like persecution without even realizing the irony here.

The point is, no one gave or received a bribe. Let's be very clear on this. You misled us, and have displayed absolutely no concern about the effect it could have on the trustee. You also misled the board about the history of the domain. When you do this, you lose the moral high ground. More importantly, it brings into question the veracity of the rest of your claim.

You could've resolved this by deleting the offending sentence, but it appears you are hell-bent maintaining the accusation. Grandmother Powell, just like the trustee, are strangers to me. While she can count on your lobbying, the trustee is defenseless against any malicious accusations you make here.

You should probably inform Grandmother Powell the situation here. If there trustee reads this, he will probably be informing the case's judge and Grandmother Powell might bear the brunt of your accusations.

 

[clasione]

Even better than sharing it; created more to share!!

 

[Chris Hydrick]

John Colascione at StrategicRevenue.com wrote about it.

https://www.strategicrevenue.com/sometimes-you-just-cannot-have-the-com-name-you-want-now-move-on/

Interesting video released by Heidi Powell explaining the case / requesting donations for her bankruptcy defense.

A link to her GoFundMe page HERE (Currently, she has received $565 from 13 people in 9 days. Her fundraising goal is $7,000.

Even better than sharing it; created more to share!!

Nicely done.

 

[Steven McEvoy]

Not only did I tweet it, but I also added @realheidipowell.... First she needs to learn what cybersqauting really is. She is the real bully here.

 

[Addison]

This is outrageous. I will be doing everything I can to help Mrs. HeidiPowell.com.

 

[Mister Funsky]

Whatever I can do to help, I will...got a couple hours to spread the word. I have been here/there and had a name taken from me when I was at my worst physically (at the peak of 'death chemo' and unable to sit at a keyboard) as well as financially and could not put up the fight that I would today.

May God bless the REAL and ORIGINAL Heidi.

 

[Slanted]

@ison,

Quit the hysterics. Defending a grandmother's right to own her own name is difficult enough without you yipping and biting at my ankles.

You misled us, and have displayed absolutely no concern about the effect it could have on the trustee.

How have I misled you? I've been crystal clear. If you're confused, instead of preaching and shouting, try asking a question.

The trustee is paid a commission. When? Once Grandma Powell is stripped of her property and name. Once the domain name is confiscated and given to the celebrity fitness trainer. Where does this money come from? From this covetous celebrity or her lawyers. Obviously, they are dangling this money as a BRIBE – i.e. as a financial inducement to get the trustee to do something that otherwise would not happen.

Is it legal? I'm sure it is. Is it ethical for the trustee? I don't pretend to know; and I really don't care. Is it ethical for the TV celebrity? Absolutely not. Talking about the trustee is nothing but a pedantic distraction, which only "ison" gives a fig about. We're talking about the instigator, the celebrity fitness instructor and her team, who want to steal HeidiPowell.com from its rightful owner.

Forget your phantom trustee and concentrate on the rights of a domain owner to keep her own first and last name, which she has owned as a .COM for 12 years! If you question THAT as a domainer, then how dare you own ANY domain yourself?

If this 5-figure sum (including a commission) were not being dangled in front of the trustee, the domain name HeidiPowell.com would have negligible market value and be of no interest to the courts. The trustee would not be concerned with the domain at all and Mr. and Mrs. Powell would not face thousands of dollars in ongoing legal expenses.

If I offer a reward to some bounty hunter who can drag you into court, deplete your financial resources, take away your property, and hand it over to me, then – even if you think the bounty hunter is a great guy – what I am doing is an act of bribery. Not in a criminal sense. But in the everyday meaning of the word, absolutely.

You also misled the board about the history of the domain.

You're hallucinating. Please share.

When you do this, you lose the moral high ground.

What ever will I do without your approval? Woe is me!

You could've resolved this by deleting the offending sentence

Resolved what? The only problem I'm aware of is your moaning.

You should probably inform Grandmother Powell the situation here.

I've been speaking directly with her and David Weslow, the attorney who is generously representing her pro bono in the UDRP case. He informed me that the trustee will be paid a commission if the domain is yanked away from Grandma Powell. That commission ultimately is paid by the celebrity who wants to steal the domain.

Being an attorney, David Weslow would – I'm sure – not use the word "bribe". However, not being an attorney and not representing Grandma Powell, I am free to use English as it has always been used outside the courts. You seem to be stuck on the criminal sense of the word. That's your blunder, not mine. The Merriam-Webster dictionary is quite clear in refuting you. Just look at the example they give:

Bribe =
something that serves to induce or influence
"offered the kid a bribe to finish his homework"

OMG, how libelous! Throw that parent and its offspring in jail!

 

[Addison]

This is not lawyerly stuff, and it is very much pertinent to the issue. You are using what now appears to be a blatantly false accusation to build a case against the other Heidi.

I accept that you may suffer from a mental disorder (attention deficit disorder), but please focus on the purpose of this discussion.

Go start a new thread if you want to discuss linguistics, idiomatic nuances, or differing perspectives on word usage in an informal context. This is not a legal document. It's a forum post. Ease up on your literals, bro.

No forum thread ever gets by without hostility from somebody. It's 1 reason why people leave the forums, sadly.

Says the guy who is constantly battling hostility in the comments of blog posts? This is the internet. It is sad, but that's the reality of free speech on an open internet.

Quit the hysterics. Defending a grandmother's right to own her own name is difficult enough without you yipping and biting at my ankles.

I second, third, and fourth these sentiments. (I may have dissociative identity disorder. )

Can we all focus? That'd be superb.

What are supplemental ways that we can help Mrs. HeidiPowell.com?

 

[Slanted]

Can we all focus? That'd be superb.

Right. Thanks.

Maybe I'll start a 2nd thread called "Joseph Peterson is a Lying Scumbag". Half the discussion can move over there, and this thread can be used to rally around Mrs. Powell.

 

[Addison]

What are supplemental ways that we can help Mrs. HeidiPowell.com?

Food for thought (not for eating):

1. Dig up dirt on HeidiPowell.net
2. Email the law firm representing HeidiPowell.net to educate them
3. Create threads on health and fitness forums about HeidiPowell.net
4. Spread the word about HeidiPowell.net on all social media (Facebook, Reddit, Instagram, YouTube...)
5. Write blog posts about this situation on Blogger.com so that when people research HeidiPowell.net they learn about it
6. Post comments on her blog posts at HeidiPowell.net to educate her

#3 will cause her to feel the most pressure, IMO.

 

[Shimmy]

What are supplemental ways that we can help Mrs. HeidiPowell.com?

Could always complain to her sponsors. Looks like Proform is a main one.

 

[Slanted]

@Addison

Good ideas. Distribution this story widely online (#3 and #4) might give this celeb a reason to stop. This negative publicity might stick around even if she DOES steal the .COM.

 

[Slanted]

@Shimmy,

Brilliant! I hadn't thought of that. Had tried ABC months ago but couldn't find someone at such a large company who thought of this problem as their problem. Most of her sponsors will be much smaller companies. Easier to get through.

 

[jberryhill]

The fitness trainer has filed a UDRP (which is clearly a case of RDNH)

Just for accuracy... the fitness trainer has not filed a UDRP. The fitness trainer filed a lawsuit in Arizona. The grandmother filed an answer and counterclaims for RDNH in that lawsuit. The fitness trainer then attempted to withdraw the lawsuit against the grandmother, but the grandmother won't drop the counterclaims and is seeking $100k. (more on that in the post below)

The bankruptcy proceeding is in Washington. The fitness trainer did not offer to pay the bankruptcy trustee for the name. The fitness trainer has claimed that the domain name was neither listed nor expressly excluded from the assets in bankruptcy. It is the trustee's legal duty to secure all assets on behalf of the creditors. It was a cheap stunt, but "bribery" has a specific meaning, and you know that words have meanings, Joseph, since you are otherwise a careful writer. Your use of the word suggests some kind of impropriety on the part of the bankruptcy trustee, who hasn't done anything wrong.

HOWEVER, on December 30, the bankruptcy trustee withdrew the motion to sell the domain name for $10,000 subject to the claimed bankruptcy exemption, and has agreed to sell the non-exempt portion of the domain name back to the grandmother for $2047. It is worth quoting from the trustee's December 30 motion on this point:

"It is unclear whether the domain name is an asset of the bankruptcy estate. It is unclear whether Debtors property claimed the exemption in the domain name. Under the circumstances, given that it's possible the estate might end up with no funds at all, and given that the estate would not receive more than $2047.00 if the exemption was allowed by the Court and the sale to the other Heidi Powell was allowed by the Court, Trustee has chosen to sell the non-exempt portion of the domain name back to Debtors."

 

[jberryhill]

I should point out that the fitness trainer's attempt to withdraw the lawsuit was apparently based on their scheme to re-open the bankruptcy and buy it as an asset which wasn't listed in the bankruptcy estate. That tactic is the subject of the cross motions for sanctions in the Arizona case.

 

[jberryhill]

For extra entertaining background, it's also worth pointing out that the fitness trainer's lawyer is the longtime counsel to the guy who runs RipOffReports.com, which has a very colorful litigation history of its own.

 

[jberryhill]

Distribution this story widely online (#3 and #4) might give this celeb a reason to stop.

In point of fact, the celebrity can't "stop" the case. She moved to dismiss the case back in September:

09/15/2016 15 MOTION to Dismiss Case Voluntary Dismissal by Heidi Powell. (Attachments: # 1 Text of Proposed Order)(Speth, Maria) (Entered: 09/15/2016)

09/16/2016 16 RESPONSE in Opposition re: 15 MOTION to Dismiss Case Voluntary Dismissal filed by Heidi Powell, Kent Powell. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Text of Proposed Order)(Weslow, David) (Entered: 09/16/2016)

The voluntary dismissal was opposed by the grandmother, on account of the grandmother's counterclaims for RDNH. Quoting from the grandmother's opposition to dismissal of the case back in September:

"Defendants Kent Powell and Heidi Powell, by counsel and pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(2), hereby object to Plaintiff’s Motion for Voluntary Dismissal solely to the extent that: (i) the requested dismissal should be with prejudice; (ii) the Defendants’ counterclaim should remain pending for independent adjudication; and (iii) the Court should condition its dismissal on the payment of reasonable fees and costs to defend against Plaintiff’s claims under the Lanham Act’s “exceptional” case standard."

So the celebrity, literally, cannot "stop this" even if she wanted to, since the grandmother has pending monetary claims against the celebrity.

 

[Slanted]

I appreciate your chiming in, John, to correct me where I'm wrong regarding the legal issues and history of this case. This isn't a matter I have researched carefully beyond preparing a detailed report on the market value of the domain name HeidiPowell.com itself, which was meant for inclusion in David Weslow's filing and submitted after an open invitation to ICA members.

Otherwise, I am relying on statements made to me by Heidi Powell, my recollection of articles written about the case since last summer, and the ICA's judgment that this is a case worth supporting. If I'm sloppy it's because I'm not being paid. Lawyers can afford to be precise. (I believe this is where the winking parenthesis should go.)

but "bribery" has a specific meaning, and you know that words have meanings, Joseph, since you are otherwise a careful writer. Your use of the word suggests some kind of impropriety on the part of the bankruptcy trustee, who hasn't done anything wrong.

On this point, we disagree. "Bribery" isn't a word requiring tongs for handling except in the narrow context of Law. In ordinary life it has a broad meaning. (See the dictionary definition and example above.) That's how I've used it, relying on readers' common sense and good will. Only deliberate misreading can interpret what I've said as a charge that the trustee has done something wrong. I've explicitly contradicted that misreading at least 3 or 4 times, as you can plainly see.

 

[Lite]

Keep up the good work.

 

[johname]

Bottom line, This is not a case for domainers to rally around. If it was the normal UDRP then ok.

Otherwise, I am relying on statements made to me by Heidi Powell, my recollection of articles written about the case since last summer

This is why Mr B calls people "the fitness trainer" the "grand mother" to avoid confusion.

 

[Shimmy]

That is not the bottom line

 

[Slanted]

Bottom line, This is not a case for domainers to rally around. If it was the normal UDRP then ok.

You may do as you please. But domainers have already rallied in support of the original Heidi Powell.

Articles have been written at DNW and outside the industry, condemning this attempt to steal her domain.

David Weslow, an experienced domain attorney, evidently sees Mrs. Powell as someone worth defending. Otherwise, why would he spend his time on her case pro bono?

The ICA, which includes most of the industry's top UDRP lawyers, voted to create a new award in honor of Lonnie Borck and to bestow it on David Weslow in a ceremony at NamesCon primarily because of this case.

I can understand how you might feel – that with a simple UDRP, we're on familiar territory. But I don't see why Grandma Powell is any less persecuted by 2 simultaneous lawsuits aimed at taking her domain than by 1 UDRP aimed at taking her domain.

Either way, the fitness instructor has NO RIGHT to confiscate a domain that Heidi Powell has owned for 12 years already and which matches her personal name exactly.

We often say – don't we? – that domain owners ought to ask for a finding of RDNH and seek damages after thieves come after our property. So if Grandma Powell, on the advice of her lawyer, is filing a counterclaim, asking for recompense, why hold that against her? She has incurred costs defending herself. And there ought to be a penalty for this kind of abuse.