Domain Empire

discuss Defend HeidiPowell.com against a Bullying Celebrity Thief!

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch
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.
 
Last edited:
75
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
To be clear - the fitness trainer Heidi Powell is an obnoxious, narcissistic, anorexic, self-obsessed a*hole of a bully, and like all bullies richly deserves a thorough beat down, and not the opportunity to escape unharmed.

Hear hear! The very Berryhill!
 
Last edited:
3
•••
Twitter - Done
Heidi Moron - Done
ABC - Done

In addition
Added to my twitter and my FB pages, all 4 - 2 on domains
 
Last edited:
3
•••
What's the point of this thread at this point?

Mainly to push back against the 2nd lawsuit – the bankruptcy case – which is racking up legal fees for Grandma Powell. The first lawsuit, with pro bono representation by David Weslow, seems to have the fitness trainer on the run. But it's the second case putting the domain in jeopardy and running up bills for the grandmother and her husband, week after week.

If the fitness trainer sees no public support for the grandmother, then she will continue dragging Grandma Powell through the court system, draining her and husband financially in an attempt to exhaust them and steal the domain.

On the other hand, if we do show public support, then the celebrity may begin to understand how negative publicity – self-inflicted and richly deserved negative publicity – can harm her personal brand. It may finally dawn on the celeb that this bad PR will dog her career for years even if she does manage to confiscate the domain.

We can make sure the PR is a significant drawback, which may cause the fitness trainer to choose a different course of action. Hopefully she or her team will back off. Once they stop throwing money at the bankruptcy case, I imagine that 2nd lawsuit will evaporate. Mr. and Mrs. Powell would not be facing those expenses if the fitness trainer were not forcing the issue by dangling an offer of money.

the legal proceedings will remain unaltered by Tweets or comments of some domain investors and forum users.

The fitness trainer can stop supporting the bankruptcy case that she instigated. Negative publicity changes the balance of her decision to keep going.

All I'm getting is that there is an attempt to get forum members to get revenge on the "fitness trainer"

No, not revenge. Public pressure often changes the outcome. Lawsuits can be withdrawn. Settlements can be made. Protest isn't about revenge. It's about deflecting attacks.
 
3
•••
In any event, the docket for the Arizona lawsuit, including links to the filings is here:

http://ia601502.us.archive.org/8/items/gov.uscourts.azd.990566/gov.uscourts.azd.990566.docket.html


But it's the second case putting the domain in jeopardy and running up bills for the grandmother and her husband, week after week.

It's my understanding the trustee has withdrawn the motion to sell the domain name.

09/15/2016
(2 pgs) Motion to Reopen Chapter 7 Case to administer possible assets.. Filed by Martin L. Smith on behalf of United States Trustee (Smith, Martin) (Entered: 09/15/2016 at 16:59:12)

09/15/2016
(1 pg) Received UNSIGNED Order Forwarded to Chambers for Judge's Signature. Filed by Smith, Martin. Related document 18 (Entered: 09/15/2016 at 17:23:02)

09/19/2016 https://ecf.wawb.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/DisplayReceipt.pl?553610,76
(1 pg) ORDER REOPENED CASE. Granting Motion to Reopen Case (Related Doc # 18) Review Case on: 12/19/2016. . (SLA) (Entered: 09/19/2016 at 08:44:04)

09/19/2016
(1 pg) Submitted But Not Entered (Related document(s)16 Motion to Reopen Chapter 7 Case). (SLA) (Entered: 09/19/2016 at 08:47:05)

09/19/2016
(1 pg) Appointment of Trustee Dennis Lee Burman by the United States Trustee Filed by Martin L. Smith on behalf of United States Trustee. (Smith, Martin) (Entered: 09/19/2016 at 09:40:21)

09/19/2016
The duly appointed Chapter 7 Trustee, after reviewing the case docket and file and determining that no claims bar date has been fixed, hereby notifies the Clerk of the United States Bankruptcy Court that assets will be administered in the above captioned case. An appropriate notice should be given to creditors to file claims. Filed by Dennis Lee Burman on behalf of Dennis Lee Burman. (Burman, Dennis) (Entered: 09/19/2016 at 12:27:42)

09/19/2016
(1 pg) Notice to File Proof of Claim Due to Recovery of Assets. CLAIMS BAR DATE (Related document(s) Trustee's Notice of Assets on Case and Request to Set Claims Bar Date). Proof of Claims due by 12/23/2016 (admin) (Entered: 09/19/2016 at 22:20:02)

09/22/2016
(2 pgs) BNC Certificate of Notice (Related document(s)23 Claims Bar Date). Notice Date 09/22/2016. (Admin.) (Entered: 09/22/2016 at 21:30:55)

10/31/2016
(2 pgs; 2 docs) Trustee's Motion to sell domain name Filed by Dennis Lee Burman on behalf of Dennis Lee Burman. The Hearing date is set for 11/23/2016 at 10:00 AM at Marysville Municipal Court. Response due by 11/16/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order authorizing sale of domain name)(Burman, Dennis) (Entered: 10/31/2016 at 17:04:28)

10/31/2016
(2 pgs) Trustee or US Trustee's Notice of Hearing on motion to sell domain name (Related document(s)25 Ch 7 Tr Motion). Filed by Dennis Lee Burman on behalf of Dennis Lee Burman. (Burman, Dennis) (Entered: 10/31/2016 at 17:05:13)

11/03/2016
(3 pgs) BNC Certificate of Notice (Related document(s)26 Trustee or UST Notice of Hearing mailed by BNC). Notice Date 11/03/2016. (Admin.) (Entered: 11/03/2016 at 21:32:41)

11/16/2016
(4 pgs) Response to Trustee's Motion to Sell Domain Name (Related document(s)25 Ch 7 Tr Motion)... Filed by Thomas E. Lester on behalf of Heidi Powell, Kent Douglas Powell. (Lester, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2016 at 13:51:21)

11/16/2016
(12 pgs) Declaration of Joseph Peterson in Response to Trustee's Motion to Sell Domain Name (Related document(s)25 Ch 7 Tr Motion)... Filed by Thomas E. Lester on behalf of Heidi Powell, Kent Douglas Powell. (Lester, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2016 at 13:55:11)

11/16/2016
(13 pgs) Amendment to Schedules B, C & G . Filed by Thomas E. Lester on behalf of Heidi Powell, Kent Douglas Powell. (Lester, Thomas) (Entered: 11/16/2016 at 13:56:28)

11/17/2016
Notice to Court of Intent to Argue. Date of Hearing: 11/23/2016. Filed by Dennis Lee Burman on behalf of Dennis Lee Burman. (Related document(s)25 Ch 7 Tr Motion, 26 Trustee or UST Notice of Hearing mailed by BNC, 27 BNC Certificate of Notice, 28 Response, 29 Declaration, 30 Amendment). (Burman, Dennis) (Entered: 11/17/2016 at 10:26:28)

11/18/2016
(3 pgs) Trustee's Reply to Debtors' Response to Trustee's Motion to Sell Domain Name (Related document(s)25 Ch 7 Tr Motion)... Filed by Dennis Lee Burman on behalf of Dennis Lee Burman. (Burman, Dennis) (Entered: 11/18/2016 at 13:14:34)

11/20/2016
(4 pgs; 2 docs) Trustee's Objection to Exemptionsfor domain name Filed by Dennis Lee Burman on behalf of Dennis Lee Burman. The Hearing date is set for 12/14/2016 at 10:00 AM at Marysville Municipal Court. Response due by 12/7/2016. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order denying claim of exemption for domain name)(Burman, Dennis) (Entered: 11/20/2016 at 17:02:31)

11/21/2016
(10 pgs; 2 docs) Debtor's Reply Re: Motion to Sell Domain Name (Related document(s)25 Ch 7 Tr Motion, 31 Reply)... Filed by Thomas E. Lester on behalf of Heidi Powell, Kent Douglas Powell. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Heidi Powell) (Lester, Thomas) (Entered: 11/21/2016 at 15:56:09)

11/23/2016
Minutes. Hearing Held. Appearances: Dennis Lee Burman, trustee; Thomas Lester representing debtor. (related document(s): 25 Ch 7 Tr Motion to Sell Domain Name filed by Dennis Lee Burman. : Continued Hearing scheduled for 01/11/2017 at 10:00 AM at Marysville Municipal Court. Submissions by trustee are due by 12.30.16. Submissions by 1.6.17. (KEK ) (Entered: 11/28/2016 at 14:10:54)

12/05/2016
Audio CD Request. Hearing Date and Time: 11/23/16.. Contact: Sherri (360) 733-5774... . Filed by Thomas E. Lester on behalf of Heidi Powell, Kent Douglas Powell. (Lester, Thomas) (Entered: 12/05/2016 at 17:42:33)

12/06/2016
Receipt of filing fee for Audio CD Request(12-11140-MLB) [misc,1806] ( 31.00). Receipt number 23005274. Fee amount $ 31.00. (U.S. Treasury) (Entered: 12/06/2016 at 07:51:02)

12/06/2016
Notice to Court Requesting Continuance of Hearing on Motion - from: Date of Hearing: 12/14/16 @ 10:00 a.m.. to: 1/11/17 at 10:00 a.m.. Filed by Thomas E. Lester on behalf of Heidi Powell, Kent Douglas Powell. (Related document(s)32 Objection to Exemptions Trustee). (Lester, Thomas) (Entered: 12/06/2016 at 07:56:37)

12/06/2016
Notice to Court Requesting Continuance of Hearing on Motion - from: Date of Hearing: 12/14/2016 at 10:00 am. to: 1/11/2017 at 10:00 am. Filed by Dennis Lee Burman on behalf of Dennis Lee Burman. (Related document(s)32 Objection to Exemptions Trustee, Notice to Court of Motion to be Continued). (Burman, Dennis) (Entered: 12/06/2016 at 12:08:07)

12/14/2016 Minutes. (related document(s): 32 Objection to Exemptions Trustee filed by Dennis Lee Burman) Appearance : Dennis Lee Burman Continued Hearing scheduled for 01/11/2017 at 10:00 AM at Marysville Municipal Court. (KEK ) (Entered: 12/21/2016 at 14:38:28)

12/30/2016
Notice to Court Motion Withdrawn, Hearing Stricken on Date of Hearing: 1/11/2017. Filed by Dennis Lee Burman on behalf of Dennis Lee Burman. (Related document(s)25 Ch 7 Tr Motion, 26 Trustee or UST Notice of Hearing mailed by BNC, Minutes Hearing Held). (Burman, Dennis) (Entered: 12/30/2016 at 19:15:38)

12/30/2016
Notice to Court Requesting Continuance of Hearing on Motion - from: Date of Hearing: 1/11/2017 at 10:00 am. to: 1/25/2017 at 10:00 am. Filed by Dennis Lee Burman on behalf of Dennis Lee Burman. (Related document(s)32 Objection to Exemptions Trustee, Notice to Court of Motion to be Continued, Notice to Court of Motion to be Continued, Minutes Hearing Held). (Burman, Dennis) (Entered: 12/30/2016 at 19:20:47)

12/30/2016
(3 pgs; 2 docs) Trustee's Motion Filed by Dennis Lee Burman on behalf of Dennis Lee Burman. The Hearing date is set for 1/25/2017 at 10:00 AM at Marysville Municipal Court. Response due by 1/18/2017. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order approving sale of non-exempt equity in domain name back to debtors)(Burman, Dennis) Modified on 1/3/2017; no notice of motion filer; contacted filer (Brazil, Victoria). (Entered: 12/30/2016 at 19:58:57)

01/03/2017
(1 pg) Trustee or US Trustee's Notice of Hearing on motion to sell back to Debtors the non-exempt equity in domain name (Related document(s)34 Trustees Motion). Filed by Dennis Lee Burman on behalf of Dennis Lee Burman. (Burman, Dennis) (Entered: 01/03/2017 at 16:20:11)

01/04/2017
Minutes. (related document(s): 32 Objection to Exemptions Trustee filed by Dennis Lee Burman filed by Dennis Lee Burman.: Continued Hearing scheduled for 01/25/2017 at 10:00 AM at Marysville Municipal Court. (KEK ) (Entered: 01/04/2017 at 15:37:37)

01/04/2017
Minutes. Hearing Not Held. Matter has been withdrawn. (related document(s): 25 Ch 7 Tr Motion filed by Dennis Lee Burman) (KEK ) (Entered: 01/04/2017 at 15:38:16)
 
3
•••
"the grandmother" asked for $50K, the domain was parked (but setup for email, allegedly) and not developed etc.

There are a lot of ways one might look at the overall picture. Typically, those unfamiliar with domain names do take the route of "they aren't doing anything with it; I have a better use for it; and they want a lot of money" = "bad actor" viewpoint. But that can be said about a lot of things. I know people with really nice vacation homes that they only visit once in a while. I wouldn't mind living in one of them full time, but they want an outrageous amount of money for them. If being able to state one's price for something which is properly yours is "greedy", is probably more a function of which side of that situation one is on.

Maintenance of the Arizona suit was entirely voluntary on the grandmother's part, once the fitness trainer had filed a motion to withdraw. Also, there could be a decent payday at the end of it for all involved, particularly now that there are dueling motions for sanctions on top of the damages sought. But, the grandmother did not pick this fight either. Ending it with a bang, particularly given that a celebrity of sorts is involved, could have the beneficial effect of sending a message to others similarly situated that going into a court or UDRP on a flimsy trademark claim, and walking out with a domain name to which someone else is properly entitled, is not always as easy as it seems.

It really spins some folk's heads around when, during the course of a domain dispute the trademark claimant makes an offer, and gets a response to the effect of, "No, we're going to sue you for more than that and KEEP the domain name." Opposing counsel didn't used to take those sorts of statements seriously until a handful of domain registrants began seeking, and obtaining, damage awards for RDNH. Those sorts of decisions have made it easier to deter frivolous claims, and I imagine that this one will add to the impact of counter-threats in domain disputes. That's a good thing.

It's that aspect of the case - a toothy, physically fit blonde woman - which, I guess, is the hook for drawing attention to these sorts of frivolous claims.

Are there facts one can spin into a counter-narrative? Of course there are. There always are. We don't live in a world of cardboard cut-out characters which fit neatly into some morality play. I always get a kick out of some folks who make Uzi Nissan out to be some kind of saint. Is his name Nissan? Yep. Was he entitled to register and use the domain name? Yep. Did he get to keep the domain name? Yep.

But, really, when you look at the token "computer business" going on at Nissan.com in relation to the overwhelming content of the site devoted to vilifying Nissan Motor Company over the bad bet he made on what they'd settle for, you have to wonder whether winning the case and having them walk away was really the best of all possible outcomes for him. How many copies of Windows-7 do you think he's selling for $149? C'mon.
 
3
•••
3
•••
I may be wrong but the case could have been dismissed (albeit without prejudice) and over for everyone by now. Grandma could be giving her grandkids Werthers Originals™ and knitting next Christmas' gifts. But there are attorney's fees, a nice payday, and a chance for the ICA to make a big bang (someone else's word not mine). I do agree with the RDNH and it's justified, valid, etc. but none of the "urgent" thread request alter that path.
"Without Prejudice" means that the party can not come back and sue you again after the case is dropped. Without having "without prejudice" in the legal terms a party is wide open. This is how you protect yourself from being sued again, for the same reason, by the same party, after a case has been dropped. Has zero to do with knitting.
 
3
•••
Just looking for what the facts are behind the story without the domainer bias.




I don't believe I rehashed this but as you did.... an asking price is part of the consideration of merit in these cases. Rightly or wrongly.

There is a difference between "no, I'll never sell because it's worth $8 and reminds me of an enduring love" and "yes, I'll sell, if the money's right and I know you got it". I could call asking $50,000 extortion but the word choice would be brought into question wouldn't it :)
But it's not mine or yours to judge which team is lying to the courts.

I didn't bring it up to add merit or discredit Grandma.. didn't you say the following:



You think your first post was fair and balanced? Perhaps you expected a completely sympathetic forum. I'm pretty sure that EVERY point the plaintiff made was strenuously denied (hence the counterclaim you omitted to mention except thru links) so let's not discuss anything other than the enduring love story.

I'm not scoffing at the "grandmother". Frankly, I'm mocking the delivery method and back-story.


And it could be a pathetic line of saintly bullsh*t to garner sympathy. I'm not a Powell so I don't know.

You want my opinion?

This is a rightful RDNH case and the courts/legal counsel will resolve this without a tweet fest and emails wasting some admins time at ABC. The motives are not cleaning the slate for the original defendant Powell at this point but doing what the American legal system loves to do... deter frivolous claims through penalty. It can't be to encourage Fitness trainer Heidi Powell to drop the lawsuit that she can't drop or drop one that's been closed.

Whether that penalty system works in the long in place is debatable but at the same time this is a great case for the ICA, is it not? A seemingly slam dunk case that involves a celebrity and a grandmother. It's almost perfect.

Could they have dismissed the case with prejudice without adjudication on penalty? I don't know. Could they have asked less severe claim of damages (to cover their expenses incurred on the other suit? I don't know - but that isn't what her legal counsel chose to do they went for the full damages and fees.

Yes, I'm a cynical person.
No, I don't think this is your agenda.
But domainers always feel that they're on the short end of a big stick and they love this RDNH stuff and Rick's Wall of Who GAF.

The funny thing to me is the awkward line between "Hey this name's worthless!" and "Hey this name's priceless!" and "This name may have allegedly been worth $50,000" and at least "a $10,000 bribe". In the end Heidi keeps her name and I hope she lives happily ever after. In the end Heidi uses the .net and it doesn't really matter because she's a media brand anyway and will be #1 in Google/Bing ...


Hot Damn! Let's tell the liberal left to Tweet their anti-Trump tweets to NBC!
Actually, I thought the show was canceled :)


"It's my understanding the trustee has withdrawn the motion to sell the domain name."

Would it not be better to attack the legal firm? Why not? Would it be tortious interference? You already accused them of bribery... (the safe form)


Yeah, well Granny is a "cybersquatter". Not a real legal one, of course, just one in you know, regular every day parlance. Domainers are so sensitive about words.


It's a bribe in regular usage. A child psychologist or parent might prefer incentive or reward in this case but point taken. Bribe can be a fairly harmless word but still with a very negative connotation.


Totally different as one is in the context of homework and one is in the context of a legal action. I'm sure your friend Wenslow would approve of putting the word "bribe" immediately following their "lawyers".


Is that not the very context in which you are using it?
The police man turned to Chris and said give me your gun.... Bentley said "Chris, Let Him Have it"
You see the use of context there? That sentence resulted in Derick Bentley being hanged. Context matters - even in little online forums.


"Fitness trainer's lawyers requested those involved to reopen the bankruptcy case to establish legal ownership of name."

Even "Hey, I'm an evil beeyotch and I think you missed this asset and it has value. I'd be willing to give you at least $10K for it which is good for your creditors. AmIright, amiright? I'll have my guys call your guys, mmkay"

So I WILL go away at this point because as you can see we're clearly just happy have domainers go tilting at windmills.



I did miss this nugget earlier:



And maybe one driver is that Heidi is totes jelly of her husbands awesome domain.. which is clearly not in use if anyone wants to let another Chris Powell know it's available:
Show attachment 49017

That was some strange writing. This is simple. Fitness Trainer should have known from the beginning that the domain was someone else's property. Instead of walking away, she chose to attack an innocent person.

In the end, I hope that the domain owner is paid for the trouble caused by the Fitness Trainer. Her legal team and her employer may also have liability if they don't handle this correctly.

Not sure what all that other stuff was. I can see that you are not attacking the domain owner. But it was kind of weird to me.
 
3
•••
The central issue here is simple. The ownership of the domain name. The tactics used by the plaintiff were legal but unscrupulous.

You have my unqualified agreement on that point.
 
3
•••
Additionally, I examined other name combinations – specifically (A) the most popular first names + Powell and (B) the most popular last names + Heidi. I was able to show that the majority of these are not registered at all. Even with far more people alive in the USA using those names, the market demand is thus LESS THAN reg fee. Conclusion 3: Average market value for the vast majority of first-name-last-name combinations such as HeidiPowell.com falls somewhere between $0 and $10.
All the analysis in the world is irrelevant when you have something that is truly one of a kind. With domains, the real value consists of 2 parts and 2 parts only - what will someone pay and what will someone accept.

My first/last name sat unregistered for years, I didn't care. Then someone paid $8 at Godaddy, held for a year and dropped it. Dropcatch scooped it up when it deleted and wants $x,xxx. They won't accept less and I wouldn't pay $8. Now what's the real value?!

Some domains sit idle and the owner tells you it's simply not for sale. How do you value those domains? Truth is that you can't. You can guess like Estibot for example, but we all know valuation tools/analysis, is worthless.

If Heidi Powell wants to ask $10 or $1 million, she's entitled. If the fitness thief pays the ask then we've established value. No other way to go about putting a number on it.
 
3
•••
The gambling thing is probably misunderstood by people who don't live in Washington.

Las Vegas is not in Washington...

http://ia801508.us.archive.org/9/items/gov.uscourts.wawd.191447/gov.uscourts.wawd.191447.9.0.pdf

True or false, that's nothing to do with domain owner rights. And none of anybody's business here, I should think.

On the first point, I already said it has nothing to do with who is entitled to the domain name. On the second point, however, yes, we paid for the debt since it was to the US Dept. of Education. We paid for that brief, too, which was ultimately unsuccessful.

Here's how I see this case, John.

I know how you see the case. I see it the same way. There is often more than one way to see things, even if one disagrees with the other perspective. But no matter how you slice it, if I go into bankruptcy and someone wants to pay the estate $10,000 for a pair of my old socks, that might be many things, but it isn't a "bribe".
 
3
•••
Yes, I've considered that. But any expert is bound to have some perspective on ethics as well as facts.

One of the rules of claiming bias is that the person in question doesn't get a say in it.

My all time favorite exchange at a WIPO seminar one time was when a UDRP panelist was asked whether representing complainants on a regular basis was a good idea for UDRP panelists, because it might suggest biased, and the panelist said, "I don't think I'm biased." No one does.
 
3
•••
I'm not a lawyer; I'm an engineer.

Well, I spent more time studying engineering than law, if that helps. Engineers tend to do pretty well in law, since the general problem - applying general rules to systems with specific conditions in order to obtain a desired outcome - is very similar. Writing legal documents is a LOT like writing code or designing a structure.

Legal decisions and arguments are a lot like applying Maxwell's equations, the Navier-Stokes equation, or thermodynamic principles to the system at hand. You figure out what set of principles apply to the relevant behavior of the system, discuss why, and show your work at each step. The main categorical difference is that with law the application frequently involves inferences of psychological motivation based on observations of behavior (and sometimes rules for making those inferences).
 
3
•••
That's right. I forgot the legal "granny" exemption that is in play here. O_o
She's not running a business on it so it's only sensible that she wouldn't list it as an asset. There's no special treatment it's just common sense. I doubt she listed the 3 pack of Hanes underwear in her drawer either.

She has the twitter handle too which is great!
 
Last edited:
3
•••
I doubt she listed the 3 pack of Hanes underwear in her drawer either.

Dude! Did you have to create that visual? :)
 
3
•••
If the actual owner lose the domain name is a Shame for this business. Maximum support to the actual owner of this domain name. How can she own it in bad faith as it is her personal name and surname ?
 
3
•••
Good news, the Arizona court has dismissed the case.

That's an interesting way to look at the ruling, since the fitness trainer has been trying to get the court to dismiss the case for a while now.

While, yes, the court dismissed the case, your position was in opposition to the fitness trainer's attempt to have it dismissed months ago. To be clear, the court denied your opposition to dismissal of the case:

The Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce Settlement Against Defendants because the parties agreed to mutually dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice and none of Defendants’ defenses to enforcement apply.

The dismissal is a ruling against you, not for you.

On the remaining bits and pieces..

The Court, however, denies the Motion with respect to attorneys’ fees because granting attorneys’ fees would cause extreme hardship to the Defendants.

So, you dodged the bullet on that one. On the remaining bits and pieces, the parties had elevated a difference of opinion to cross motions for sanctions....

The Court denies both Plaintiff’s Motion for Sanctions and Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Sanctions because Plaintiff and Defendants had legally and factually tenable justifications for their filings. Because the Court will enforce the parties’ agreement to dismiss all claims and counterclaims with prejudice, the Court denies as moot all other pending motions.

...
which also means that the counterclaim for $100k is likewise dismissed.
 
3
•••
2
•••
Joseph,

Thanks for spreading the word and for the call to action!

Nat
 
2
•••
Sounds like a real life version of the John Malkovich Squarespace commercial, only without the humour.
 
2
•••
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. :xf.cool:)

Can we all focus? That'd be superb.

What are supplemental ways that we can help Mrs. HeidiPowell.com?
 
2
•••
@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.
 
2
•••
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.
 
2
•••
I noticed that MrsHeidiPowell.com is available. I tweeted to her that she should take that. It's available for hand reg.
 
2
•••
I noticed that MrsHeidiPowell.com is available. I tweeted to her that she should take that. It's available for hand reg.
Or even HeidiPowell.Fit which is actually a perfect fit (no pun intented) for her brand.
 
2
•••
  • The sidebar remains visible by scrolling at a speed relative to the page’s height.
Back