DNS Research Inc. vs. Enom/Verisign

[StargateCapital]

.tv domains revoked

..

 

[kam]

......................edited.

 

[rodash]

Its not Demand Media it is Verisign not allowing that and I don't blame them there is no way I would let them go for $10 and everyone knows no .tv is priced at $10

ENOM Registration Agreement

SERVICE(S) PROVIDED AT WILL AND TERMINATION OF SERVICE(S): We and your Primary Service Provider may reject your domain name registration application or elect to discontinue providing Service(s) to you for any reason within 30 days of a Service initiation or a Service renewal.

Personally I think Enom is on shaky ground. In my humble opinion this disclaimer does not warrant sufficient grounds to undo these sales. Enom has made the names available at a set price, they've allowed CashCow to register the names and they've taken his money. He has acted in good faith and hasn't done anything that warrants the cancellations of the domains.

 

[StargateCapital]

..

 

[kam]

Personally I think Enom is on shaky ground. In my humble opinion this disclaimer does not warrant sufficient grounds to undo these sales. Enom has made the names available at a set price, they've allowed CashCow to register the names and they've taken his money. He has acted in good faith and hasn't done anything that warrants the cancellations of the domains.

You're right.
Since we are enter into the contract in good faith.
eNom undo the sale is obviously breach of the contract.

 

[lambda]

Personally I think Enom is on shaky ground. In my humble opinion this disclaimer does not warrant sufficient grounds to undo these sales. Enom has made the names available at a set price, they've allowed CashCow to register the names and they've taken his money. He has acted in good faith and hasn't done anything that warrants the cancellations of the domains.

Registering premium names at 10$ in good faith... yes, of course (ironic).
It was obvious to everybody that it was a glitch in eNom's system.

I don't say that CashCowDomains made something wrong... He tried and succeed to catch the domains. If he didn't catch them, somebody else of this forum had catched them all. But you cannot bypass the argument it was an obvious glitch...

 

[BDM1]

Its their GLITCH, they have to be responsible, geez you guys, we are all responsible for our own actions and this is the same thing... I registered server.tv and degree.tv and that was glitch and I never got them either, not good enough! stop bowing to these major companies and take them on! 30 days to take a product back that you are developing is fraudulant, whatever way you look at it. I still get emails from friends wanting to join server.tv even one today after 1 mon th of emails to me.tv/enom or whover they are. Still not rectified and still not mine. Ill wear that one, even after I spent money on it as it didnt come up as paid in my account. CCD is in a different situation and has all rights to them as with golf.tv did.

The are so many scenerios in so many types of businesses that this applies to..

 

[StargateCapital]

..

 

[Kate]

Registering premium names at 10$ in good faith... yes, of course (ironic).
It was obvious to everybody that it was a glitch in eNom's system.
...

Maybe. But Enom should take responsibility for their actions.
I would just write this off as a commercial gesture
Are they so cash-strapped ?

Personally, I think these are glitches (especially the bolded ones lol):
...

Indeed. Pretty ridiculous.

Maybe Verisign just doesn't want the extension to grow and flourish like .com? I wonder what would happen if the price on all .TV domains were to drop to $6.50 a piece (with a domainer friendly registration agreement added of course).

CCD

It's just that they are too greedy and may be on their way to killing the extension.
The more I read stories like that the more I think .tv is a domainer's trap.
Quite honestly I must consider .tv a HIGH-RISK TLD due to
a. unfriendly pricing policies
b. well, plain mismanagement by Enom/Verisign
Uncertainty is a major hindrance to any type of investment.

Perhaps it's time to vote with your wallet and consider more sensible extensions.

 

[BDM1]

sdsinc: good post and Im also thinking the same thing.. its is mis managed and I am also worried about the future when I see these types of things.. The problem is with these types of companies, they think they are untouchable... one person can bring down a company or a country for that matter, it isnt about bucks, its about tenacity and conviction..

greed as you say is the motivator...

to bad a few more like minded people werent here, with a grasp on business and ethics. cheers

 

[MrRhee]

um. even if they caved and gave you the names for $10 this year, I assume the renewal fee next year will be "corrected" to $10K or even $19990 so even if you win, you win for a year (now that I think about it, that wouldn't be too bad)


they do reserve the right to adjust renewal pricing, right? LOL.


good luck to everyone.

 

[jmt1]

the bit about renewal pricing also seems a bit odd. so you agree a price say $1000 and then next year they can say they want $3000.

has this happened yet?

 

[antonis12]

has this happened yet?

No.

 

[SKG]

Autorenewal is in queston? I would set your calendar to renew in advance manually.

 

[TheWatcher]

For those with deep pockets there actually may be some interesting one's in this pile. I'm passing on them but everyone should browse the premium list - all the newly added name's are priced at 10k. Here are some of the best in no particular order - which if they hadn't messed up, some would be priced higher IMO, especially the single letter L.tvs.
E.TV, D.TV, P.TV, Digital.TV, Finance.TV, Wine.TV (I really wanted this one!), Bank.TV, Hotel.TV, Resort.TV, Holidays.TV, Vacations.TV, UK.TV, England.TV, America.TV, Europe.TV, Car.TV, Bike.TV, Catering.TV, Shoes.TV, Chocolate.TV, Satellite.TV, and many more....

I've been watching these and other names as well but with the price tag, forget it.

 

[scooby47]

CCD a couple of other bolded ones to add to your list ..

wirtschaft.tv 100,000 (WHAT ...how much! what is it what does it mean?)

comedia.tv 50,000 (ur'm again apologies but how much?? and what does that mean??)

 

[Kate]

wirtschaft.tv 100,000 (WHAT ...how much! what is it what does it mean?)

I think it means 'Economics' in German. Inflated prices anyway.

 

[iNod]

If we make a mistake paying the proper amount or entering the proper name.. We either get stuck with an inproper spelling or lose our domain. If they do that, they can it back and add 3 more 0's onto it and say sorry, and stand behind their mighty wall of Terms of Service..

Am I the only one who sees a flaw in this and wants CCD to win? Time we start putting these giant companies who go opps and push it off onto our plates all the time in there place. It is us who make Verisign weathly.. And we should be in control.. However it doesn't work that way, atleast we should be in control of this.

- Steve

 

[jberryhill]

This is exactly what my attorneys said.

That is extremely hard to believe.

Mistake, although not favored, is a perfectly legitimate ground for repudiation of a contract. The primary inquiry is whether it is objectively apparent that a mistake was made.

Sorry, but if a newspaper misprint advertises new cars for sale for $10 then, no, you aren't going to be entitled to buy and keep a car for $10.

Now, it is readily apparent that Enom charges $49.95 for registration of non-premium .tv domain names, and I'm sure you know that.

Given the registry price for .tv domain names it is not objectively reasonable that offering these names for $10 was anything other than a mistake.

The case for a mistake here meets both the subjective and objective tests for voiding the registration contract.

The fact that the registration agreement includes an unlimited right to revoke a registration within the first 30 days only makes Enom's position stronger. I mean, think about this for a minute. Your entire claim to these domains is based upon your agreement to the registration contract for the domains.

So your entire point about the registration contract is that it is valid when it favors you, and not valid where it doesn't?

I want some of whatever your attorneys have been smoking.

 

[virtuali]

Thanks

Thanks for your input. Hopefully this will help quell the argument if it is legit to buy these premiums for $10 after a clear registry error.

I do wish CCD luck with this claim but ultimately this claim is going nowhere fast.

Regards.

 

[TheWatcher]

With your busy schedule, you manage to clear this issue with us John. A short message enough for us to understand and move forward.

Thank you,
em

 

[equity78]

Thank you John for taking the time everyone knows in this business you are the man.

 

[StargateCapital]

I want some of whatever your attorneys have been smoking.

Sounds like you've already had some if you ask me.

I say that because you don't come across like a very professional attorney to mock other attorneys in a public forum. The old enom pricing of $49.95 no longer applies. I personally get them for less than half that. My attorneys were talking from the standpoint of contractual law and are still reviewing all points on this. You opinion, which may be valued by others is not sufficient for me to cease my case against them for this as well as other actions they have taken upon me. They offered names for sale at $10.00 a piece, I purchased those names, enom processed the payment for the names, sent email receipts, placed the names in my account and I updated the nameservers to trafficz for management. The next day they removed them from my account and issued a refund to my enom account ( not credit card) saying that they should be $10,000 each. This happened to others as well, AND this has happened with other domainers who have contacted me expressing interest to fight enom/verisign (with regard to various pricing at a mere whim of Enom/Verisign) as they have revoked and resold names for a higher profit and that too is the focus of my pursuit against them.

So your entire point about the registration contract is that it is valid when it favors you, and not valid where it doesn't?

Additional part of my point is that it doesn't favor the domainer at all.

A while back, verisign released some single letter .com domain names. An error or not on behalf of the registry, not the customer.

Thanks anyways and best of luck in your future endeavors.

CCD

 

[jberryhill]

I say that because you don't come across like a very professional attorney to mock other attorneys in a public forum.

Well golly, I guess they'll just have to sue me. But since you have not named these attorneys, it's a tough call as to whether I have indeed mocked anyone in particular.

Without knowing any of the details of this situation, an initial answer from just about any attorney in response to "I bought something and now the vendor wants it back" is going to be "they can't do that".

The old enom pricing of $49.95 no longer applies. I personally get them for less than half that.

I love it when folks seize on an irrelevant detail, as if it changes the situation.

Does Enom offer .tv registrations to anyone for $10 on a regular basis?

No. You had an objective indication, based on your own experience, that the posted price was wrong.

Your point that you pay "less than half" of $49.95 doesn't change the fact that you know darn well that $10 was an unusual price for premium .tv domain names. It's not about whether you pay less than $49.95. The point is whether they ever offer .tv domain names for $10. Your response indicates you know darn well that they don't offer .tv registrations for $10, even under whatever discount you have.

I got the figure by going to Enom, typing a random string, and seeing what the price was. Yes, you may get a discount of some kind, but you admit it's not at the level of $10.

This observation is objective evidence there was a mistake, because I don't even think the registry-registrar cost is $10. And, no, I'm not motivated enough to go look it up, so someone else can enlighten me here.

Additional part of my point is that it doesn't favor the domainer at all.

So? It's the contract you agreed to. Again, you don't seem to understand the point. Your entire claim to have rights in these domain names rests upon the fact that you entered into a registration contract with Enom in order to register them.

You don't have a problem with the Enom registration contract - just the parts that were applied here, and which you don't like. A court is not going to sit down with the contract and redline it for "stuff we like, and stuff we don't like."

My attorneys were talking from the standpoint of contractual law and are still reviewing all points on this.

LMK when they get around to reading the contract in question:

http://www.enom.com/terms/agreement.asp

We and your Primary Service Provider may reject your domain name registration application or elect to discontinue providing Service(s) to you for any reason within 30 days of a Service initiation or a Service renewal.
[...]
You further acknowledge and agree that your registration of a domain name is subject to suspension, cancellation or transfer by any ICANN procedure, by any registrar or registry administrator procedures approved by an ICANN-adopted policy, to correct mistakes by us, another registrar or the registry administrator in administering the domain name or for the resolution of disputes concerning the domain name.

You opinion, which may be valued by others is not sufficient for me to cease my case against them

Heaven forfend, please, don't let me stand in your way. Forge ahead, win a huge victory, and prove I'm an idiot.

They offered names for sale at $10.00 a piece, I purchased those names, enom processed the payment for the names, sent email receipts, placed the names in my account and I updated the nameservers to trafficz for management. The next day they removed them from my account and issued a refund to my enom account ( not credit card) saying that they should be $10,000 each.

Yes. And if you run that fact pattern, and nothing else, by just about any attorney, that attorney is going to tell you Enom can't do that. If I wasn't familiar with domains, even I would say they couldn't do that. I'm going to go out on a limb here and guess that these attorneys have no experience in litigation relating to registrar contracts.

After that attorney reads the registrant agreement, and also understands the usual pricing for .tv domain names, then the attorney will go one of four ways:

1. The attorney will say you are SOL under the agreement.

2. The attorney will say you are probably SOL under the unilateral mistake doctrine.

3. The attorney will answer poitn 1, by forging ahead with an "unconscionability" theory - i.e. that the 30 day revocation or express mistake clause are so "shocking to the conscience" that, as a matter of public policy these terms should not be enforcible.

4. The attorney will forge ahead under some theory based on false advertising, or else a theory based on the Uniform Commercial Code (not realizing this was not a sale of goods in the first place).

I'm curious to know what form of remedy you want from Enom, though. Your options would be:

A. Specific Performance - i.e. you want the domain names.
B. Refund - well, that's out, since you already got that.
C. Monetary Award - presumably what you think the domains are worth.

As I said, option B is out, since you already got that. Option C would be pretty funny, since your entire point is that you are claiming they screwed you out of $XXX,XXX by not selling you the domains for $10. Plus, Option C would really cut into your claim that they were the ones seeking unconscionable terms.

The real problem with option A is that legal theories 3 and 4 are usually brought by people who are trying to get out of a contract. Here, what you are seeking is performance of selective bits of a contract, while at the same time claiming that other bits & pieces of the contract are not enforcible.

But, heck yeah, I have no doubt that your attorneys support your position 100%. That's what attorneys get paid to do.

 

[StargateCapital]

Many thanks for your input jberryhill.

Take care,

CCD

 

[IAmAllanShore]

Thread re-opened but in legal issues - no spiders here.

However, there were too many good points made to just let this disappear into nothingness.

Any flames directed at me will likely find kindling .

-Allan