Has anyone used lawyers to recover domains? I have a problem with Dynadot.com, which used trickery to lock my account, and the domains I registered (which were free for registrations) ) have been down for over a month, right from the moment of registration and payment, for over a month.
Dynadot.com problem
- Thread starter Robert140
- Start date
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
Here is their response after a month of the domain not functioning, it never did.
"We're so sorry for the unpleasant experience. According to the team, they have to refile the documents and it will take some time more. We've been actively following up on this."
"We're so sorry for the unpleasant experience. According to the team, they have to refile the documents and it will take some time more. We've been actively following up on this."
DomainArmer
Established Member
- Impact
- 145
DomainArmer
Established Member
- Impact
- 145
I understand where you are coming from and I will upset too, but dynadot will always find a solution if they can and asap.
Try to tag them here and talk to them, they will help for sure.
OK, I get it. A month is too short for Dynadot to launch domains.
The fact that they write once that the account is not blocked and the second time that I have to unblock it is also not their problem, but mine.
I'll go further. To unblock my account, I recorded that weird video of my face and ID, and still nothing. Maybe they were a legitimate company once. Now, judging by their responses (most likely implemented by artificial intelligence), I just want to get a few domains back and get out of there.
Last edited:
- Impact
- 18,806
Yes, certainly, all of the time. How much would you be willing to spend to do that?
What I like about these kinds of threads is that it is always a mystery what the other side's rationale is. The OP refers to "trickery" which sounds pretty interesting. For someone at Dynadot to go out of their way to employ some kind of deception to make off with the insanely low margin they make on a couple of domain registrations doesn't sound very cost efficient.
I'm guessing the "free for registrations" thing refers to the domains having been available for registration, and not a price, but maybe we'll find out.
It is really helpful in these kinds of things, in addition to saying what it is you want, to give your best guess of an answer to a question like "If someone asked Dynadot why these names are not activated, what do you think Dynadot would say?"
It kind of sounds like there was an identity verification issue. Dynadot is not allowed to activate a domain name unless they get some level of verification, usually via email loop, but sometimes involving SMS or other methods, of the contact information of the person registering a domain name. Is that where things went sideways here, or is it something else?
It can also be helpful to provide some information that might be enlightening as to why Dynadot's system may have subjected your transactions to higher scrutiny. Things like, where are you located, what sort of access are you using (VPN, IP address from where), and how that matches up with your payment and registration data. Is there some reason why your transaction may have looked suspicious?
Getting those kinds of facts out of the way up front can go a long way toward understanding the problem you are having. And, if you do hire a lawyer, you're going to have to present your problem in an understandable way or the time and cost will be greater.
Yes, "free for registrations" thing refers to the domains having been available for registration.
By "tricks," I mean that the account and all domains were blocked when I tried to obtain the authinfo codes. Dynadot replied that I had entered the wrong PIN code for my account. I replied that this was false, but they replied that their systems had verified it, and that was it. The question is why their systems had previously sent me an email stating that "I checked your account and there is no block. What are you referring to? Please clarify, and we can check!"
I paid as usual, using a Santander card, now with an Erste Bank card. I haven't changed my email address or used a VPN. The IP address is from a mobile network operator in Poland, Germany, etc. (T-Mobile).
There's no reason for the transaction to be suspicious, especially since these domains are marked as "For Sale Landing Page" in my account interface, so Dynadot doesn't consider them fraudulent.
I've now filed a complaint with ICANN and AFNIC.fr; we'll see what happens.
By "tricks," I mean that the account and all domains were blocked when I tried to obtain the authinfo codes. Dynadot replied that I had entered the wrong PIN code for my account. I replied that this was false, but they replied that their systems had verified it, and that was it. The question is why their systems had previously sent me an email stating that "I checked your account and there is no block. What are you referring to? Please clarify, and we can check!"
I paid as usual, using a Santander card, now with an Erste Bank card. I haven't changed my email address or used a VPN. The IP address is from a mobile network operator in Poland, Germany, etc. (T-Mobile).
There's no reason for the transaction to be suspicious, especially since these domains are marked as "For Sale Landing Page" in my account interface, so Dynadot doesn't consider them fraudulent.
I've now filed a complaint with ICANN and AFNIC.fr; we'll see what happens.
I received a response from AFNIC.fr, very quickly
When submitting a question to AFNIC.fr, I provided my registered Dynadot.com account information, including my first name, last name, address and e-mail. Here's the response:
Thank you for your email.
The domain names casieracolis.fr and casiercolis.fr are under verification procedure. According to our database, you are not an official registrant of these domain name.
The Registrant (the one in Whois) and the registrar (Dynadot) were informed about the verification procedure that started on 8 June. The domain names casieracolis.fr and casiercolis.fr have been blocked since 15/06. As we have not received the requested documents, the holder's portfolio has been blocked for a maximum period of thirty (30) calendar days.
During this period, we kindly ask the registrant and the registrar to provide any supporting documents that would allow us to conclude that the holder complies with the eligibility and reachability requirements. The documents must be submitted by the official registrant of the domain name (the one published in the WHOIS database – DEUP Service Inc.).
Please contact Dynadot as soon as possible. Otherwise, if the holder/Registrant is unable to provide the requested documents within the maximum period of thirty (30) calendar days (starting from 15/06), the entire domain name portfolio, as well as any newly registered domain names, will be deleted. Once deleted, the domain names will become available for registration by third parties on a first-come, first-served basis.
To avoid missing future communications, I recommend changing the registrant information to your own name. Please note that when the registrant is a private individual, their contact details are hidden in the WHOIS database and are not publicly visible (except for the technical contact).
If your requests remain unanswered, please send us a copy of all your correspondence with your registrar so that we can intervene. AFNIC will then contact your registrar and handle your request with them.
I remain at your disposal if you have any questions.
When submitting a question to AFNIC.fr, I provided my registered Dynadot.com account information, including my first name, last name, address and e-mail. Here's the response:
Thank you for your email.
The domain names casieracolis.fr and casiercolis.fr are under verification procedure. According to our database, you are not an official registrant of these domain name.
The Registrant (the one in Whois) and the registrar (Dynadot) were informed about the verification procedure that started on 8 June. The domain names casieracolis.fr and casiercolis.fr have been blocked since 15/06. As we have not received the requested documents, the holder's portfolio has been blocked for a maximum period of thirty (30) calendar days.
During this period, we kindly ask the registrant and the registrar to provide any supporting documents that would allow us to conclude that the holder complies with the eligibility and reachability requirements. The documents must be submitted by the official registrant of the domain name (the one published in the WHOIS database – DEUP Service Inc.).
Please contact Dynadot as soon as possible. Otherwise, if the holder/Registrant is unable to provide the requested documents within the maximum period of thirty (30) calendar days (starting from 15/06), the entire domain name portfolio, as well as any newly registered domain names, will be deleted. Once deleted, the domain names will become available for registration by third parties on a first-come, first-served basis.
To avoid missing future communications, I recommend changing the registrant information to your own name. Please note that when the registrant is a private individual, their contact details are hidden in the WHOIS database and are not publicly visible (except for the technical contact).
If your requests remain unanswered, please send us a copy of all your correspondence with your registrar so that we can intervene. AFNIC will then contact your registrar and handle your request with them.
I remain at your disposal if you have any questions.
Last edited:
There's an account lock at Dynadot and it applies to everyone (you need to know your PIN code to unlock). The fact that the .fr registry has blocked your .fr domains seems to be a completely different issue. You're not the only person who is having problems with .fr domains,
https://www.namepros.com/threads/fi...y-code-top-level-domain.1358508/#post-9607834
(ignore the .fi extension here)
@Name2go
https://www.namepros.com/threads/fi...y-code-top-level-domain.1358508/#post-9607834
(ignore the .fi extension here)
@Name2go
- Impact
- 18,806
That's good. I don't understand the point about complaining to ICANN. ICANN has nothing to do with how Dynadot manages .fr domains.
What do you suppose they mean by that? I don't follow every ccTLD rule, but did you elect Dynadot's privacy service?
Do you know what they mean by that?
Who is this:
contact: DEUP Service Inc.
address: DEUP Service Inc.
address: Palangos g. 4-327 # 7
address: 01402 Vilnius
address: Vilnius County
country: LT
I did a search of the Lithuania corporate register. Maybe I'm using it wrong, but I didn't find any such company...
Palangos 4-327 is a pretty big building with quite a few businesses and mailboxes...
But, the upshot appears to be that, as far as AFNIC is concerned, the registrant reported to them is DEUP Privacy Service (deuprivacy.com) and not you. If you are using them as a proxy, you have no standing in this matter.
And... this is one of my pet peeves about proxy services or people who use fictitious registrant data in order to protect their privacy. Yes, you will protect your privacy. But if something goes wrong, all of the effort you put into disassociating your personal identity from the domain name can render it impossible to solve the problem because, as the privacy user intended, their identity is indeed disassociated from the domain name.
The bottom line here is that you do not appear to be the registrant of the domain names, as far as the registry is concerned. The registry is going to want DEUP Privacy Service to confirm their identity. You confirming your identity to Dynadot is irrelevant.
You are not the registrant of the domain names. So, it would appear that the actual registrant needs to confirm its identity to the registry. You don't have anything to do with it.
The only thing you did was to pay Dynadot to register two domain names to someone else. That was generous of you. It looks like they did that successfully. If the registrant wants to use the domain names, the registrant will have to verify their identity.
Last edited:
- Impact
- 50,429
Tagging @wongtaichiew to add his view on recovering domains as well.
- Impact
- 50,429
FWIW, that particular privacy service didn't respond in the case mentioned below.
https://www.syreli.fr/decisions/telecharger/66953
Summary of the AFNIC SYRELI Decision – ******france.fr (FR‑2025‑04475)
1. Parties
Requester: COLAS
Domain Holder: DEUP Service
2. Domain Name
******france.fr
Registered: 15 July 2025
Registrar: Dynadot Inc
Expires: 15 July 2026
3. Procedure
COLAS filed a SYRELI complaint on 30 July 2025.
AFNIC verified the request and froze the domain.
The holder did not respond.
The SYRELI panel met on 16 September 2025.
- Impact
- 50,429
Which, in an unfortunate way, ends up reminding me of Rob Monster's privacy‑service conduct.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2021/d2021-1050.html
7. Initial Comments on the Registrar’s Role in This Case
This is an unusual case in that the Respondent is the CEO of the Registrar and also is described as the “governor” and “head” of the Registrar’s subsidiary, Anonymize, which was used for a privacy shield. These relationships create an inherent conflict of interest since the Panel relies on the Registrar to provide accurate information in response to the verification request, but the Respondent, who also is the CEO of the Registrar, would have an interest in hiding accurate information about the ownership of the disputed domain name (not to mention other domain names it may acquire) in order to strengthen the Respondent’s arguments with respect to its purported legitimate interest and potential bad faith.
Those prospects of a conflict of interest are problematic in this case. The Registrar, in its verification, inaccurately claimed that Mr. Monster was the owner of the disputed domain name and had been the owner since 2000, long before the Complainant adopted its trademark. In its initial Response, the Respondent provided other information – that the owner of the disputed domain name was Anonymize (not Mr. Monster) and that Anonymize had owned the disputed domain name continuously since September 2020, before Mr. Lindell’s plan in March 2021 to use the disputed domain name for a competing social media service, but significantly after the initial creation date by some two decades. Either way, these inaccurate disclosures were to the Respondent’s benefit. If the Respondent had actually registered the disputed domain name in the year 2000 prior to the Complainant’s trademark rights (registered in 2018 and claiming first use in 2016), the Panel would have found an absence of bad faith registration. See, e.g., WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 3.8. Similarly, if the Respondent had registered the disputed domain name prior to the announcement of Mr. Lindell’s venture, and had never transferred the disputed domain name to Mr. Lindell, then the Panel likely would find an absence of bad faith registration since the disputed domain name would have been registered without regard to Mr. Lindell’s arguably infringing plan. See generally id., sections 3.1 and 3.2.
The information provided both by the Registrar and in the Response was materially inaccurate, and it was only after the Panel issued procedural orders seeking clarification that the Respondent corrected the record and admitted that Mr. Monster personally was the registrant but that he only acquired the disputed domain name in March 2021, after the Complainant acquired its trademark and after Mr. Lindell announced and then abandoned his plans. Even still, there remain unexplained inconsistencies in the documentary material submitted by the Respondent: the emails between the Registrar and Mr. Carter indicate that the seller of the disputed domain name on March 9, 2021 was Mr. Monster (not Mr. Vinkhona) and that there was no broker involved, but the internal escrow documentation the Respondent submitted states that Mr. Monster was the broker for Mr. Vinkhona.
This misconduct by the Respondent and by the Registrar is troubling. It is all the more troubling because it appears to have been designed to improve the Respondent’s prospects for success in this proceeding. It raises significant questions as to the propriety of a Registrar being allowed to buy and sell domain names for its own account (or the propriety of a Registrar’s subsidiaries, officers or employees to engage in domain name speculation). This is an issue that the Panel believes should be addressed by ICANN, and the Panel requests that the Center share this decision with ICANN so that ICANN may consider whether to impose restrictions on such behavior by registrars. See, e.g., Registrar Accreditation Agreement, sections 3.7.9 (“Registrar shall abide by any ICANN adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars”) and section 1.3.2 (noting that ICANN may establish specifications and policies on “prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registries or registrars”).
The inaccurate disclosures in this case also call into question the certification in the Response, signed by the Respondent’s counsel, Daniel R. Price, “that the information contained in this Response is to the best of the Respondent’s knowledge complete and accurate, that this Response is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Response are warranted under the Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument.” The documentation that the Respondent eventually submitted with its second and third supplemental submissions directly contradicts the representations in the initial Response, which at minimum makes the Panel question Mr. Price’s due diligence in signing the certification.
The Complainant is not wrong to highlight these serious issues. They are not violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure since, as the Complainant acknowledged, those rules apply in United States federal courts, not in a UDRP proceeding. But they do call into question the Respondent’s credibility. That said, the documentation attached to Mr. Monster’s declaration does appear to substantiate his explanation of the facts of this case.
If this proceeding were being held before a United States court, the court would have the inherent power, as a sanction, to rule for the Complainant in light of the Respondent’s serial misrepresentations. The Policy, however, does not give that power to a panel. Rather, the Panel only can rule for the Complainant if the Complainant satisfies the three elements of the Policy. The Panel turns to that analysis in the following three sections.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2021/d2021-1050.html
7. Initial Comments on the Registrar’s Role in This Case
This is an unusual case in that the Respondent is the CEO of the Registrar and also is described as the “governor” and “head” of the Registrar’s subsidiary, Anonymize, which was used for a privacy shield. These relationships create an inherent conflict of interest since the Panel relies on the Registrar to provide accurate information in response to the verification request, but the Respondent, who also is the CEO of the Registrar, would have an interest in hiding accurate information about the ownership of the disputed domain name (not to mention other domain names it may acquire) in order to strengthen the Respondent’s arguments with respect to its purported legitimate interest and potential bad faith.
Those prospects of a conflict of interest are problematic in this case. The Registrar, in its verification, inaccurately claimed that Mr. Monster was the owner of the disputed domain name and had been the owner since 2000, long before the Complainant adopted its trademark. In its initial Response, the Respondent provided other information – that the owner of the disputed domain name was Anonymize (not Mr. Monster) and that Anonymize had owned the disputed domain name continuously since September 2020, before Mr. Lindell’s plan in March 2021 to use the disputed domain name for a competing social media service, but significantly after the initial creation date by some two decades. Either way, these inaccurate disclosures were to the Respondent’s benefit. If the Respondent had actually registered the disputed domain name in the year 2000 prior to the Complainant’s trademark rights (registered in 2018 and claiming first use in 2016), the Panel would have found an absence of bad faith registration. See, e.g., WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 3.8. Similarly, if the Respondent had registered the disputed domain name prior to the announcement of Mr. Lindell’s venture, and had never transferred the disputed domain name to Mr. Lindell, then the Panel likely would find an absence of bad faith registration since the disputed domain name would have been registered without regard to Mr. Lindell’s arguably infringing plan. See generally id., sections 3.1 and 3.2.
The information provided both by the Registrar and in the Response was materially inaccurate, and it was only after the Panel issued procedural orders seeking clarification that the Respondent corrected the record and admitted that Mr. Monster personally was the registrant but that he only acquired the disputed domain name in March 2021, after the Complainant acquired its trademark and after Mr. Lindell announced and then abandoned his plans. Even still, there remain unexplained inconsistencies in the documentary material submitted by the Respondent: the emails between the Registrar and Mr. Carter indicate that the seller of the disputed domain name on March 9, 2021 was Mr. Monster (not Mr. Vinkhona) and that there was no broker involved, but the internal escrow documentation the Respondent submitted states that Mr. Monster was the broker for Mr. Vinkhona.
This misconduct by the Respondent and by the Registrar is troubling. It is all the more troubling because it appears to have been designed to improve the Respondent’s prospects for success in this proceeding. It raises significant questions as to the propriety of a Registrar being allowed to buy and sell domain names for its own account (or the propriety of a Registrar’s subsidiaries, officers or employees to engage in domain name speculation). This is an issue that the Panel believes should be addressed by ICANN, and the Panel requests that the Center share this decision with ICANN so that ICANN may consider whether to impose restrictions on such behavior by registrars. See, e.g., Registrar Accreditation Agreement, sections 3.7.9 (“Registrar shall abide by any ICANN adopted specifications or policies prohibiting or restricting warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registrars”) and section 1.3.2 (noting that ICANN may establish specifications and policies on “prohibitions on warehousing of or speculation in domain names by registries or registrars”).
The inaccurate disclosures in this case also call into question the certification in the Response, signed by the Respondent’s counsel, Daniel R. Price, “that the information contained in this Response is to the best of the Respondent’s knowledge complete and accurate, that this Response is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Response are warranted under the Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument.” The documentation that the Respondent eventually submitted with its second and third supplemental submissions directly contradicts the representations in the initial Response, which at minimum makes the Panel question Mr. Price’s due diligence in signing the certification.
The Complainant is not wrong to highlight these serious issues. They are not violations of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure since, as the Complainant acknowledged, those rules apply in United States federal courts, not in a UDRP proceeding. But they do call into question the Respondent’s credibility. That said, the documentation attached to Mr. Monster’s declaration does appear to substantiate his explanation of the facts of this case.
If this proceeding were being held before a United States court, the court would have the inherent power, as a sanction, to rule for the Complainant in light of the Respondent’s serial misrepresentations. The Policy, however, does not give that power to a panel. Rather, the Panel only can rule for the Complainant if the Complainant satisfies the three elements of the Policy. The Panel turns to that analysis in the following three sections.
- Impact
- 18,806
He was totally off the rails. When a customer got a UDRP, Rob would get in touch with them and offer to settle it for them. One of his victims got in touch with me. He had told Rob he just wanted to transfer the domain name for nothing and terminate the proceeding. The UDRP provides a mechanism for doing that, but you have to do it correctly. Totally unknown to his customer/victim, Rob turned around and tried to squeeze a few bucks out of the complainant, which the complainant of course refused.
Totally bonkers stuff.
But, yeah, what seems to have happened here is that the privacy service didn't verify, and so Dynadot is asking the OP to verify his information because they don't understand what is going on. I don't know if that DEUP entity is a normal proxy for .fr registrations through Dynadot or not, but, to address the OP's question about legal mechanisms here, he's not the registrant of the domain names anyway.
I still want to know about the "trickery" mentioned in the OP.
Last edited:
Polls of interest ➔
-
What are your strengths as an investor?- 191 voters
- 29 replies
-
What's your domain portfolio size?
- 477 voters
- 139 replies
-
How do you think a potential buyer first checks if your domain is for sale?- 553 voters
- 53 replies
Hot this week ➔
-
If you want better domains, widen the world you read and research- 57 comments
- 125 points
-
The coming .ai “junk drop”- 13 comments
- 9 posters
-
One Big Sale Does Not Equal a Strategy- 11 comments
- 39 points
-
Front, Middle, or End—AI Sells Everywhere: 31 AI Domains Sold in Just 48 Hours- 15 replies
- 6 posters
-
Dynadot.com problem
- 14 replies
- 5 posters
Hot this month ➔
-
Feedback on DM offers- 119 replies
- 17 posters
-
Domains wanted: 5k-10k(per item)
- 66 replies
- 61 posters
-
Official Thread for Reasons .SI sucks as an Extension- 83 replies
- 25 posters
