discuss Intimidation Tactics: Share the most absurd attempts at intimidation!

[DanSanchez]

Intimidation, legal or not, happens daily in the domain industry. I am an avid defender of private property and individual responsibility, personally, this is one of the most disgusting acts an individual can undertake to try to appropriate a domain name.

Now that I work at Epik, I am often tasked with answering emails from foolish individuals who purposely or not, try to misconstrue UDRP/Trademark rights try to intimidate the registrar into handing over a certain domain. This means they have already tried to contact the owner of the domain and they have failed, but it's not always the case.

In this particular instance, the individual attached a 2013 company registration from Turkey! The domain was owned by a client since 2009. The claimant is in textile and serves a very small local audience. Not only that, but the domain in question here has a .com.tr counterpart, which they recently registered in December 2019.

Here is the email he sent me directly:

During my research, I discovered they were going to rebrand to the (shorter) name they recently registered and felt entitled enough to steal the .com by coercion and intimidation.

Let's learn from each other to proactively protect our assets. Domains are unique, powerful, and valuable business tools. I am happy to share what my process is for establishing an appropriate response to help you fight this constant battle.

Share your recent experiences of fraudulent attempts to separate you from your rightful property.

Some relevant questions:

• How can we establish a standard operating procedure for aggressive defense of digital assets?
• How can the community come together to learn from each other?
• How can we establish legal rights to our property when someone (unscrupulous or not) comes demanding our property by force and coercion?

Warning: I am not an attorney.

 

[karmaco]

A form letter of some sort would be helpful. In general, for self and name protection, words should be chosen carefully when responding to an inquiry. That is not caving to intimidation— its just smart.

Before you reply to anyone no matter how rude or aggressive they come across as— do your research. Sometimes people walk into a trap by their not thought out replies. You can put someone in their place in the nicest and most professional way possible. Never let them see you sweat it or become annoyed.

 

[Pramanthas]

A form letter of some sort would be helpful. In general, for self and name protection, words should be chosen carefully when responding to an inquiry. That is not caving to intimidation— its just smart.

Before you reply to anyone no matter how rude or aggressive they come across as— do your research. Sometimes people walk into a trap by their not thought out replies. You can put someone in their place in the nicest and most professional way possible. Never let them see you sweat it or become annoyed.

In my case, after explaining again why my initial offer was no longer valid, I added "Feel free not to contact me again".

It took all my strength not to add ", you moron" at the end of that sentence. Would have been really satisfying, especially because he was misrepresenting my position to his client.

 

[lock]

I had bikers call me a few times to tell me Jellywresting is theirs even turned up at a wrestling show. That particular show was attended by load of male wrestlers in audience. When they noticed I was getting leaned on they intervened and never had problem again. I registered the name first only got hassled when it got popular.

 

[Mister Funsky]

Share your recent experiences of fraudulent attempts to separate you from your rightful property.

Some relevant questions:

• How can we establish a standard operating procedure for aggressive defense of digital assets?
• How can the community come together to learn from each other?
• How can we establish legal rights to our property when someone (unscrupulous or not) comes demanding our property by force and coercion?

Great idea for a thread...it is prudent for us (domain investors) to have a plan in place for if/when we have one of these termites crawl out of the woodwork as in the example you posted.

A 'form letter' type of response, short and sweet, would be a goal for us to work on.

This (direct contact by fruitcakes and ensuing drain on time) is one of the reasons I am a proponent of privacy. Many years ago I had an unhinged owner of a salon come to my house demanding I give her the domain that had her unique (not) name in it. Although she was very beautiful and almost convinced me to capitulate, I was strong and let her know my rotties were highly trained to protect me and not only should she lower her voice but she should leave my property...quickly. I've used privacy ever since on all names.

 

[Ategy]

1. Client will reimburse you for upfront costs of holding the domain from 2014-2021: $91.00 USD (using namecheap's pricing and rounded up to $13.00 USD per year)
2. Client will pay for the escrow at escrow.com: $12.19-$23.63 USD (depending on settle method)
3. Client will provide a profit for you: $250.00 USD
4. This brings the total to $353.19-$364.63 USD, but to cover the spread of the escrow costs, and for your time spent, they added an additional amount to bring the amount they are willing to offer you $375.00 USD in totality.
5. In summary, the total to you: $375.00 USD

There are way too many wannabe gangsters in this business. It makes it all the more spicy. You have to appreciate his approach (however moronic) for it's entertainment value. I give him an A+ for computation

Actually .. this is pretty standard "compensation" pricing. Although his big mistake (where you can tell he's not a professional) was using the word "profit" instead of "compensation for your time". Otherwise in theory that pricing structure is pretty common in allowing the domain owner to make a bit of money, but at the same time allowing the "assumed" trademark owner to "make an offer", without it legally being an actual "offer" because technically it's just "compensation for your actual expenses and some of your time".

This tactic will often work because (1) many such domains were acquired for handreg or at least less than that typical $300-$500 range ($375 in this case) AND combined with the fact (2) most domainers have no clue about how trademarks and UDRPs work and will usually concede to a lawyer's scare tactics.

 

[Ategy]

I think there should be a standard letter that a domain owner could email/send, that makes very clear all 3 of the necessary components to win a udrp. Possibly even pinpoints the weakness of the hijacker's case.

Count me in on that, we would all benefit from a collective effort for defense. Many business groups do this for reoccurring issues.

Great idea for a thread...it is prudent for us (domain investors) to have a plan in place for if/when we have one of these termites crawl out of the woodwork as in the example you posted.

A form letter of some sort would be helpful. In general, for self and name protection, words should be chosen carefully when responding to an inquiry. That is not caving to intimidation— its just smart.

100% NO !!! Sorry for being so loud and blunt guys .. lol .. particularly since I know your intentions are obviously to be helpful to others. But the #1 weapon domainers have against unethical and immoral lawyers and "apparent" trademark owners is to pretend to be stupid and string them along and let them continue to make false statements and mistakes. The more mistakes they make the better. Like in @pooky's case the person used the word "profit". Just by the very fact they used that word legally opens the door to now allow @pooky to make future counter offers, whereas if they used the words "compensation for your time" any counter-offer by Pooky could have been used against him depending on how the initial contact was worded.

My advice is to never show what you know and always be as vague as possible. The dumber they think you are, the more aggressive they will be and the more likely they will be to do/say something that will later go to prove their bad faith. Even go so far as to ask seemingly stupid questions about why they think they have rights to the domain etc etc. The less you say and the more they say means that if it actually does end up in legal proceedings, you have an arsenal of proof and evidence supporting you and proving the bad faith of the complainant.

So the bottom line is NEVER EVER "educate" or "inform" potential complainants, and instead ALWAYS string them along and allow them to make mistakes.

Eventually when you have enough proof of bad faith you can use that to shut things down if you are 100% sure. But until you are 100% sure of your case, say as little as possible and get them to say too much.

Most importantly .. UDRPs are supposed to be standard and have rules .. but there are indeed many grey-zone cases where you can never be 100%. Or even worse .. those same grey-zone case where one panellist would vote one way and a different panellist would vote another way (even with the same information/evidence) .. so it's for that reason why it's always ideal to get as much supporting evidence in your favour as possible. In borderline cases unethical behaviour could make the difference if you can prove it. Which means whenever possible, NEVER giving them information or help and ALWAYS try to get them to say as much as possible.

In fact, it wouldn't even be a bad idea to pretend to be stupid on the subject of trademarks and ask them why they think they are legally entitled to the domain .. because if they come back with reasons that are not actual rules/laws that would go some ways to prove their bad faith.

Also .. never ever even use the term UDRP unless they use it first. NEVER! lol

 

[Ategy]

Before you reply to anyone no matter how rude or aggressive they come across as— do your research. Sometimes people walk into a trap by their not thought out replies. You can put someone in their place in the nicest and most professional way possible. Never let them see you sweat it or become annoyed.

Yes .. this is why you should always respond with the minimum possible. Above I said I put the lawyer of a global top 100 brand in his place and shut him down completely. But it was after several months of VERY CAREFULLY thought out and planned correspondence. In the end he had zero on us (the domain wasn't mine, I was just helping a fellow domainer) and I had multiple emails of him crossing an ethical line trying to intimidate me. Each time he wrote something new I just laughed at how he was completely unaware he was digging his own grave. Then I'd wait a few days or even weeks and respond in a way that made him make even more mistakes. There was even a couple of times where I knew if I didn't write back, he would eventually reply with something that showed even more bad faith. Sure enough time after time like clock-work each my my responses and non-responses got him to say EXACTLY what I wanted him to say. Eventually it was enough for me to have checkmated him in my head .. but it was months and months of carefully thought out responses.

By far the best thing you can do when it comes to trademarks is learn and inform yourself on the actual rules and laws. Over the last few years I've become particularly informed on the subject thanks to closely listening to everything @jberryhill posts as well as podcasts both he and @Zak Muscovitch have given with @DomainSherpa and @DomainNameWire.

So DEFINITELY do not try this at home unless you've informed yourself. But either way the best rule of thumb to keep in mind is always say as little as possible and get them to say as much as possible. Obviously it won't make much difference if you're up against a good and ethical lawyer, or if you truly are infringing on someone else's trademark .. but always minimise your potential mistakes and maximise theirs.


While he might not post often, far and away the best resource for domainers on NamePros is the search result for @jberryhill posts. There is absolutely no way I or anyone can thank him enough for the vast amounts of information he has shared over the years .. you are throwing away crucial domainer education if you don't follow him. So to be clear .. thanks @jberryhill and @Zak Muscovitch!

 

[HotKey]

Hi

sometimes, subtle intimidation works best,
when you don't realize it....
when you're being intimidated along with the rest

being silenced by individuals in a clique or by those who are riding in the wagon
it can come from a single source of power, energized by the volume of likes
where you remain silenced, as not to get dis... liked

it's a force, which can be innocent or intentional and maybe even coincidental, when it happens.
but if there is a pattern....


imo...

Well I don't know what Biggie's saying there, but I'm sure using it in the responding letter would suffice to ward off any sort of bad guy.

 

[Pay.My.id]

Intimidation is worst tactic to reach goal

 

[Mister Funsky]

100% NO !!! Sorry for being so loud and blunt guys .. lol .. particularly since I know your intentions are obviously to be helpful to others. But the #1 weapon domainers have against unethical and immoral lawyers and "apparent" trademark owners is to pretend to be stupid and string them along and let them continue to make false statements and mistakes. The more mistakes they make the better. Like in @pooky's case the person used the word "profit". Just by the very fact they used that word legally opens the door to now allow @pooky to make future counter offers, whereas if they used the words "compensation for your time" any counter-offer by Pooky could have been used against him depending on how the initial contact was worded.

That is your take on the issue and you are welcome to it...we all have opinions, sometime opposing, but when you have done this as long as I have and have successfully beat more than one of these morons back, please do not shout at me.

Although I did not read every word in the thread, I did not see any suggested templates for a 'response' letter. In over 20+ years I have developed about 12 'canned' responses based upon how the initial contact/inquiry is worded from genuinely interest parties in my names...and no, I am not going to post them all here (not until I hang my domainer hat up and then I will post all my secrets here, on namepros).

However, I am more than eager to help design a generic letter/response that would be a starting place for a response to an erroneous claim...especially for a beginner to use. You are correct in that the initial response by the domain investor could cause an issue if worded improperly when there is a challenge to ownership rights and/or trademark claims.

Any response should be short and sweet, make no mention of selling the domain and should convey the sense (either directly worded or through insinuation) that ownership will be defended. Maybe @Rob Monster will chime in, especially since he and @DanSanchez are in constant contact, with some ideas.

This is a perfect time when we should all come together with specific answers so we can work as a unified group. btw, thanks for the expired/closeout work you do [for] us!

EDIT: I added 'for' above in case my English teacher mother is looking down

 

[DaveX]

Yes .. this is why you should always respond with the minimum possible. Above I said I put the lawyer of a global top 100 brand in his place and shut him down completely. But it was after several months of VERY CAREFULLY thought out and planned correspondence. In the end he had zero on us (the domain wasn't mine, I was just helping a fellow domainer) and I had multiple emails of him crossing an ethical line trying to intimidate me. Each time he wrote something new I just laughed at how he was completely unaware he was digging his own grave. Then I'd wait a few days or even weeks and respond in a way that made him make even more mistakes. There was even a couple of times where I knew if I didn't write back, he would eventually reply with something that showed even more bad faith. Sure enough time after time like clock-work each my my responses and non-responses got him to say EXACTLY what I wanted him to say. Eventually it was enough for me to have checkmated him in my head .. but it was months and months of carefully thought out responses.

By far the best thing you can do when it comes to trademarks is learn and inform yourself on the actual rules and laws. Over the last few years I've become particularly informed on the subject thanks to closely listening to everything @jberryhill posts as well as podcasts both he and @Zak Muscovitch have given with @DomainSherpa and @DomainNameWire.

So DEFINITELY do not try this at home unless you've informed yourself. But either way the best rule of thumb to keep in mind is always say as little as possible and get them to say as much as possible. Obviously it won't make much difference if you're up against a good and ethical lawyer, or if you truly are infringing on someone else's trademark .. but always minimise your potential mistakes and maximise theirs.


While he might not post often, far and away the best resource for domainers on NamePros is the search result for @jberryhill posts. There is absolutely no way I or anyone can thank him enough for the vast amounts of information he has shared over the years .. you are throwing away crucial domainer education if you don't follow him. So to be clear .. thanks @jberryhill and @Zak Muscovitch!

I don't think I could play dumb if I received a communication requesting I give up my domain or face a udrp. I think I would be firm.

 

[Ategy]

@Mister Funsky .. I know what you're trying to say .. and I 100% AGREE that your intentions are to be super helpful!

However .. the bigger problem remains that every domain is different. In fact .. it could be in many cases that indeed the domain owner is in the wrong and actually infringing on another persons/companies trademark. Thus by sending a "template" generic reply they could indeed be making things worse.

The only thing people should do when they receive intimidation tactics is say as little as possible and then inform themselves to get as accurate a pulse on the specific situation for the specific domain.


That being said .. also 100% YES .. for more experienced domainers who have a basic understanding of trademarks and the UDRP process .. then developing a template is fine because you should already know when and when not to use it, as well as when and how to tweak it when necessary.

But making a generic template available to all domains, and specifically new domainers, would really be a mistake and likely be more harmful than useful. Again .. the best thing you can do in these situations is to say as little as possible and allow the other side to make as many mistakes as possible.

Again .. every domain is unique .. and every contact is unique .. there certainly is no "standard" situation .. so it's definitely best policy to give the basic advice of being as cautious as possible.

 

[Ategy]

I don't think I could play dumb if I received a communication requesting I give up my domain or face a udrp. I think I would be firm.

Again .. that's fine .. you and @Mister Funsky both very likely have a VASTLY better grasp and understanding of trademarks and UDRPs than the average domainer. Enough that you can probably tell what's a bluff and what's not in the very first email sent ... and even more likely that the domains you've acquired are 100% TM safe to begin with so indeed all cases you're faced with are clear cut.

Trust me .. there's nothing I'd rather do than put someone using unethical intimidation tactics in their place ... but that is not good advice to be giving beginners .. particularly those unfamiliar with trademarks and the UDRP process.

For those people the best advice is to give as little ammunition to the opposing side as possible while collecting as much for yourself as possible. Then go get yourself some help and/or inform yourself.

 

[frank-germany]

Intimidation, legal or not, happens daily in the domain industry. I am an avid defender of private property and individual responsibility, personally, this is one of the most disgusting acts an individual can undertake to try to appropriate a domain name.

Now that I work at Epik, I am often tasked with answering emails from foolish individuals who purposely or not, try to misconstrue UDRP/Trademark rights try to intimidate the registrar into handing over a certain domain. This means they have already tried to contact the owner of the domain and they have failed, but it's not always the case.

In this particular instance, the individual attached a 2013 company registration from Turkey! The domain was owned by a client since 2009. The claimant is in textile and serves a very small local audience. Not only that, but the domain in question here has a .com.tr counterpart, which they recently registered in December 2019.

Here is the email he sent me directly:

During my research, I discovered they were going to rebrand to the (shorter) name they recently registered and felt entitled enough to steal the .com by coercion and intimidation.

Let's learn from each other to proactively protect our assets. Domains are unique, powerful, and valuable business tools. I am happy to share what my process is for establishing an appropriate response to help you fight this constant battle.

Share your recent experiences of fraudulent attempts to separate you from your rightful property.

Some relevant questions:

• How can we establish a standard operating procedure for aggressive defense of digital assets?
• How can the community come together to learn from each other?
• How can we establish legal rights to our property when someone (unscrupulous or not) comes demanding our property by force and coercion?

Warning: I am not an attorney.

recommended reading:

https://www.amazon.com/Winning-Through-Intimidation-Robert-Ringer/dp/0449207862

 

[frank-germany]

I had bikers call me a few times to tell me Jellywresting is theirs even turned up at a wrestling show. That particular show was attended by load of male wrestlers in audience. When they noticed I was getting leaned on they intervened and never had problem again. I registered the name first only got hassled when it got popular.

yeah I had bikers too
but you know what
I gave them the domain ...
it was worthess anyway

 

[frank-germany]

In response an inquiry (by a broker on behalf of someone) for a domain that I had not listed for sale, I quoted an asking price of $10k. I got a reply that it's beyond the client's budget. So far so good. But the broker added this work of art:

Fortunately for you though, I have convinced them that this is still worth discussing to see if we can find some agreeable terms.

That stated, I am proposing to you the following hopefully reasonable offer that will make you a quick and decent profit as well as satisfy my client:

1. Client will reimburse you for upfront costs of holding the domain from 2014-2021: $91.00 USD (using namecheap's pricing and rounded up to $13.00 USD per year)
2. Client will pay for the escrow at escrow.com: $12.19-$23.63 USD (depending on settle method)
3. Client will provide a profit for you: $250.00 USD
4. This brings the total to $353.19-$364.63 USD, but to cover the spread of the escrow costs, and for your time spent, they added an additional amount to bring the amount they are willing to offer you $375.00 USD in totality.
5. In summary, the total to you: $375.00 USD

Seeing that we were far apart, I rejected the offer and also informed him that my 10k ask was rendered null and void by his counter-offer, and that my asking price would probably go up in the future. Apparently this was a hostile move according to the broker and he informed me that he would inform his client about my "hostility".

I told the moron not to contact me again.

my answer is
"the value to us is much higher"

 

[ThatNameGuy]

Intimidation, legal or not, happens daily in the domain industry. I am an avid defender of private property and individual responsibility, personally, this is one of the most disgusting acts an individual can undertake to try to appropriate a domain name.

Now that I work at Epik, I am often tasked with answering emails from foolish individuals who purposely or not, try to misconstrue UDRP/Trademark rights try to intimidate the registrar into handing over a certain domain. This means they have already tried to contact the owner of the domain and they have failed, but it's not always the case.

In this particular instance, the individual attached a 2013 company registration from Turkey! The domain was owned by a client since 2009. The claimant is in textile and serves a very small local audience. Not only that, but the domain in question here has a .com.tr counterpart, which they recently registered in December 2019.

Here is the email he sent me directly:

During my research, I discovered they were going to rebrand to the (shorter) name they recently registered and felt entitled enough to steal the .com by coercion and intimidation.

Let's learn from each other to proactively protect our assets. Domains are unique, powerful, and valuable business tools. I am happy to share what my process is for establishing an appropriate response to help you fight this constant battle.

Share your recent experiences of fraudulent attempts to separate you from your rightful property.

Some relevant questions:

• How can we establish a standard operating procedure for aggressive defense of digital assets?
• How can the community come together to learn from each other?
• How can we establish legal rights to our property when someone (unscrupulous or not) comes demanding our property by force and coercion?

Warning: I am not an attorney.

Dan...i learned a long time ago that "intimidation" is a business tactic used by some of your less savory characters. Robert Winger authored "Winning through Intimidation" in 1973, and a former partner of mine made it required reading for his sales staff soon after our partnership split in 75/76.

My former partner even used the tactics learned in Winger's book against me, and was able to "intimidate" one of my better clients into giving him their business. Fortunately I was later able to win the client back because winning business via "intimidation" doesn't usually last long. Winger also wrote "Million Dollar Habits", and despite the tactics he teaches, I would recommend reading his books in order to recognize what some (not all) of your competition is up to.

 

[patents]

Similar to previous commentators on this thread, when this situation happens (as it does often,) I respond with a simple "no thank you" coupled with a few questions to get as much information as possible as their statements will almost always support your position should you need to show evidence of the other party's bad behavior.

 

[DanSanchez]

100% NO !!! Sorry for being so loud and blunt guys .. lol .. particularly since I know your intentions are obviously to be helpful to others. But the #1 weapon domainers have against unethical and immoral lawyers and "apparent" trademark owners is to pretend to be stupid and string them along and let them continue to make false statements and mistakes. The more mistakes they make the better. Like in @pooky's case the person used the word "profit". Just by the very fact they used that word legally opens the door to now allow @pooky to make future counter offers, whereas if they used the words "compensation for your time" any counter-offer by Pooky could have been used against him depending on how the initial contact was worded.

My advice is to never show what you know and always be as vague as possible. The dumber they think you are, the more aggressive they will be and the more likely they will be to do/say something that will later go to prove their bad faith. Even go so far as to ask seemingly stupid questions about why they think they have rights to the domain etc etc. The less you say and the more they say means that if it actually does end up in legal proceedings, you have an arsenal of proof and evidence supporting you and proving the bad faith of the complainant.

So the bottom line is NEVER EVER "educate" or "inform" potential complainants, and instead ALWAYS string them along and allow them to make mistakes.

Eventually when you have enough proof of bad faith you can use that to shut things down if you are 100% sure. But until you are 100% sure of your case, say as little as possible and get them to say too much.

Most importantly .. UDRPs are supposed to be standard and have rules .. but there are indeed many grey-zone cases where you can never be 100%. Or even worse .. those same grey-zone case where one panellist would vote one way and a different panellist would vote another way (even with the same information/evidence) .. so it's for that reason why it's always ideal to get as much supporting evidence in your favour as possible. In borderline cases unethical behaviour could make the difference if you can prove it. Which means whenever possible, NEVER giving them information or help and ALWAYS try to get them to say as much as possible.

In fact, it wouldn't even be a bad idea to pretend to be stupid on the subject of trademarks and ask them why they think they are legally entitled to the domain .. because if they come back with reasons that are not actual rules/laws that would go some ways to prove their bad faith.

Also .. never ever even use the term UDRP unless they use it first. NEVER! lol

I agree partially, each case is so unique in it's circumstances that the template would have to as unique as the situation. There is definitely no "template" in the common sense of the word. I think the benefit is mostly educational and in the best case scenario, a pre-defense build up in case of actual proceedings.

Perhaps we should develop a standard response process or system that would follow your line of thinking first. Then escalate with a fact-based deterrent against further intimidation.

 

[frank-germany]

100% NO !!! Sorry for being so loud and blunt guys .. lol .. particularly since I know your intentions are obviously to be helpful to others. But the #1 weapon domainers have against unethical and immoral lawyers and "apparent" trademark owners is to pretend to be stupid and string them along and let them continue to make false statements and mistakes. The more mistakes they make the better. Like in @pooky's case the person used the word "profit". Just by the very fact they used that word legally opens the door to now allow @pooky to make future counter offers, whereas if they used the words "compensation for your time" any counter-offer by Pooky could have been used against him depending on how the initial contact was worded.

My advice is to never show what you know and always be as vague as possible. The dumber they think you are, the more aggressive they will be and the more likely they will be to do/say something that will later go to prove their bad faith. Even go so far as to ask seemingly stupid questions about why they think they have rights to the domain etc etc. The less you say and the more they say means that if it actually does end up in legal proceedings, you have an arsenal of proof and evidence supporting you and proving the bad faith of the complainant.

So the bottom line is NEVER EVER "educate" or "inform" potential complainants, and instead ALWAYS string them along and allow them to make mistakes.

Eventually when you have enough proof of bad faith you can use that to shut things down if you are 100% sure. But until you are 100% sure of your case, say as little as possible and get them to say too much.

Most importantly .. UDRPs are supposed to be standard and have rules .. but there are indeed many grey-zone cases where you can never be 100%. Or even worse .. those same grey-zone case where one panellist would vote one way and a different panellist would vote another way (even with the same information/evidence) .. so it's for that reason why it's always ideal to get as much supporting evidence in your favour as possible. In borderline cases unethical behaviour could make the difference if you can prove it. Which means whenever possible, NEVER giving them information or help and ALWAYS try to get them to say as much as possible.

In fact, it wouldn't even be a bad idea to pretend to be stupid on the subject of trademarks and ask them why they think they are legally entitled to the domain .. because if they come back with reasons that are not actual rules/laws that would go some ways to prove their bad faith.

Also .. never ever even use the term UDRP unless they use it first. NEVER! lol

100% agreed.

any detail you give away w/o them asking
gives them more grip