news Man purchased ClintonKaine.com domain name for $8 in 2011; he wants $90,000 to sell it

[deez007]

(CNN) – Tucked away in a basement apartment in northeast Washington, a 28-year old federal contractor and lawyer, who creates web comics as hobby, hopes he’s sitting on a fortune.

He goes by the pen name “Jeremy Pegg” and as first reported by “DCIST”, he bought the domain name “clintonkaine.com” in 2011 for just eight dollars. So how did he predict this ticket five years ago?

Pegg explained, “Obama was looking at Kaine before he picked Biden and I don’t know, I felt like he was very likely going to be a running mate.”

Covering his bases, he also bought the “Clinton Biden” and “Clinton Booker” domain names and last year, he sold “cruz2016.com” and “bidenwarren.com” for $1,500 dollars each, but this might be his biggest real estate.

Since Clinton picked Kaine as her running mate, Pegg says he’s been getting huge web traffic and multiple interview requests.

Until he sells clintonkaine.com, he’s sharing his homemade comics on the webpage, depicting the democratic duo in a Harry Potter narrative.

Pegg said, “I’m pretty sure Clinton will win this election so the domain will keep being valuable for at least 4 years.”

He describes himself as very political, progressive, and who likes Sanders. Pegg goes on to say, “I have people suggesting I put links to the hacked DNC emails up there.”

He now supports Clinton, but does say he’s open to selling the domain name to Sanders, or even Trump supporters, whoever makes the best offer.

Pegg concludes with, “I don’t actually want to hurt the Clinton campaign, but I do want to sell the domain so we’ll see.”

Source: http://wwlp.com/2016/07/26/man-purchased-clintonkaine-domain-name-for-eight-dollars-in-2011/

 

[CoalToNewCastle]

Owner of ClintonKaine.com checking in.

It is so hard to predict what I'll actually get for this domain. I got a genuine offer for $10,000 by email, and I got an offer on Flippa for $30,000 that I'm not 100% sure was legitimate. Regardless, I'm not ready to accept $30,000 yet and I raised the minimum bid on Flippa to $60,000. We'll see what actually ends up happening.

 

[wot]

I purchased ClinKaine.com last week, very little traffic and no requests for interviews.

I would consider selling it to Putin or the Chinese premier.

 

[Addison]

Cyber squatter is cyber squatter.

This is not cybersquatting. Incorrectly labeling someone as a cybersquatter is a worse offense, in my eyes, than actually being a cybersquatter. While I disapprove of both, you should get your facts straight:

1. No one owns a trademark for "ClintonKaine" or "Clinton Kaine"
2. He registered the domain name in 2011 before the pair teamed up
3. He is using it in a perfectly valid and legal way that even if there was a trademark, his use of the domain name would not be infringing on their rights, and he'd be fully within his legal rights to do so.

Your accusation is completely off base and inappropriate.

 

[CoalToNewCastle]

That's correct, I sold it for $15,000.

I managed to find a connection of mine (actually one of my clients for my solo legal practice) who was close friends with the Clinton campaign's digital director, and she arranged a phone conversation between us. It turned out that this was not something the campaign, or at least the digital department of the campaign, was interested in spending much money on. Supposedly they didn't have a "discretionary budget" for things like this. She offered me $2000. I said the lowest I would go was $15,000 and she said they definitely couldn't do that. She thanked me for going to the campaign about the domain first and then we said goodbye.

So I handed it off to a Flippa broker (meaning I would pay a 12% "success fee" rather than the default 10% fee on Flippa) who said he was talking to an interested party already and I gave him a minimum that I would accept ($14,000) and he ended up selling it to somebody.

I'm pretty happy about this. The $90,000 figure was always a deliberate highball that I was using to see if I could get more than the domain was worth, and to help me get more press attention. Before Clinton made her VP choice, I had estimated that I would get somewhere between $10,000 and $20,000 if I hit the "jackpot" with one of my domains, so this is about right. And on top of that, I also got massive publicity for my webcomic and for my own personal brand as a DC-based lawyer, writer, and artist.

 

[000]

The owner using the domain for political cartoons clearly falls into the realm of fair use, even if there were a trademark on this political ticket (and there is not, nor are there any relevant trademarks on "Clinton" or "Kaine"). Whether the owner chooses to accept an offer for it is entirely up to him.

Here's what an ACTUAL LAWYER (of 20+ years) had to say about RomneyRyan.com in 2012.

The Romney campaign likely could not rely on a UDRP complaint to obtain control of the domain name, because the campaign probably does not have trademark rights in “Romney Ryan” (a requirement for any UDRP proceeding) or, at least, it did not have trademark rights when the domain name was registered in 2010. Numerous political candidates have tried and failed to use the UDRP to their advantage. Just ask Meg Whitman, the former eBay CEO who lost a UDRP decision for <megwhitmanforgovernor.com>, <megwhitman2010.com>, <meg2010.com>, <whitmanforgovernor.com>, and <whitman2010.com> when she was running for governor of California.

So many self-righteous know-it-alls around here with senseless knee-jerk reactions !!

 

[CoalToNewCastle]

ClintonKaine.com owner checking in again.

Some people in this thread have made some interesting arguments and I appreciate the perspectives. I am actually a trademark attorney myself (though I am only 28), and I plan to defend myself if somebody files a UDRP or lawsuit against me in this situation. I have my own thoughts about the arguments involved, but I don't want to give away my hand to anybody who might use them against me, so for now I'm going to avoid weighing in within this thread.

As for people doubting the value of the domain, it's gotten an average of 7,500 unique visitors a day since the announcement of Clinton's running mate. 35% of those visits are through social media and news stories, but 61% of the visits are from people directly typing "clintonkaine.com" into their browsers (another 4% are from Google searches). Even if that number drops to one or two thousand unique visitors a day, the domain still has clear value. I'm happy to keep making use of that value to promote my own admittedly mediocre webcomic. If the Clinton campaign or another political entity values it enough to make me a good offer, then so be it!

In the meantime, I ask that people stop getting nasty in this thread, particularly the people yelling at Kate and using the arguments of one lawyer to try to strong-arm her into dropping her own arguments. You can find a lawyer out there to make almost any argument you want. That's kind of our job! One lawyer making one argument doesn't mean that opposing arguments by non-lawyers are now worthless.

P.S. If you want to keep up to date on new events involving the domain name, feel free to follow me on Twitter at @JPGclog.

 

[N-A]

Why do we all the sudden change the tone from condoning this type of behavior when the owner steps in?

Cyber squatter is cyber squatter.

 

[Chris Hydrick]

It's completely accurate when it pertains to domaining in general. Is this a situational scenario that I'm unaware of?

Maybe, maybe not. He's a political cartoonist. Does he have to sell the domain, or could he benefit from promoting his own political comics?

He said he wants to sell the domain, though, as a Hillary supporter, he has the option to follow in the footsteps of a Bernie supporter and gift the domain for a greater cause should he choose.

What does being a moderator of a forum have to do with this? Can I not have a personal opinion? Though, I'm not going to offer any advice, as I have none to give.

You have every right to your opinion, and as a mod, that opinion weighs a little more to newbie NamePros members. I'm not trying to butt heads either, I just don't understand disliking somebody's very first NamePros post. Seems more reactive than proactive.

Look, I'm not here to butt heads with you. I merely posted this as an educational piece referring back to my answer to your first question: When it comes to domaining, cyber squatting or purchasing names, has generally been looked down upon. When we have characters like this who pop up with a success story, the whole tide turns; people will think they will be the lucky one and become copy cats. I've seen it, I've been around a while now.

Good points...

 

[LucidDomains]

You are comparing Surname/Surname.com to Firstname/Surname .com.

It's like this.

If I owned WalkerLyon.com (David Walker and Eric Lyon)

Do you think you can take it from me? No. Probably not.

If I owned DavidWalker.com or EricLyon.com

Do you think you can take it from me? Probably yes.

 

[deez007]

Opinions are like @ssholes. Everyone has one, the only one you should be concerned about is your own.

If the domain owners gets his price and makes a sale, then AWESOME.

Udrp or no Udrp who cares, Who are the "victims"? Two politicians... oh the horror! What a complete global catastrophe that these two politicians are being taken "advantage" off. ....hahahah really guys? - I am neither a Trump or Clinton fan.....99% of politicians are useless self serving oxygen thieves. The domain owner could be a stand up human being for all we know, maybe this money he gets from the sale could have a positive impact on many lives. (his circle of friends and family)

I think there are far more pressing issues in the world to get worked up about than possible Udrp claims against politicians....

Just sharing my opinion.... like I said the only opinion you should worry about is your own... if some of what I say here resonates with you then cool...take those bits and discard the rest... if none of it resonates..then that's also cool..discard all of it. There is no right and wrong....it simply is what it is....

 

[000]

I could definitely see Trump buying it, just for the headlines.

And considering that tens of millions of dollars are being spent on both sides, this domain could actually be a great purchase even at 6 or 7 figures.

Then again, the owner may hold out for such a sum, and miss out on a chance to sell for $10K or $50K. Hard to say!

 

[WilsonM]

Whether he can cash in or not... what I like about this guy is that he has a pretty good sense of prediction. Well, at least he got it right this time.

Although his interest in politics helped.

 

[wot]

Owner of ClintonKaine.com checking in.

It is so hard to predict what I'll actually get for this domain. I got a genuine offer for $10,000 by email, and I got an offer on Flippa for $30,000 that I'm not 100% sure was legitimate. Regardless, I'm not ready to accept $30,000 yet and I raised the minimum bid on Flippa to $60,000. We'll see what actually ends up happening.

For a genuine offer of $10K I would have ripped their arm off to get the money but that's just me. Would not trust any bids over $ 100 on Flippa, but then that's just me.

Hope your waiting pays off although the skeptic in me is not so confident. I have had no interest at all in the poor man's version but I do have a good Hillary related name, but just a speculative punt.

 

[WilsonM]

This is not cybersquatting. Incorrectly labeling someone as a cybersquatter is a worse offense, in my eyes, than actually being a cybersquatter. While I disapprove of both, you should get your facts straight:

1. No one owns a trademark for "ClintonKaine" or "Clinton Kaine"
2. He registered the domain name in 2011 before the pair teamed up
3. He is using it in a perfectly valid and legal way that even if there was a trademark, his use of the domain name would not be infringing on their rights, and he'd be fully within his legal rights to do so.

Your accusation is completely off base and inappropriate.

I agree @David Walker has a point about cybersquatting, I however, think @Addison is right in the context of this particular case. @Grilled makes some valid observations too.

I give @CoalToNewCastle full marks for his political intuition, trendspotting, foresight & prediction.

Remarkable to say the least.

Also this thread is beginning to get interesting!

 

[Kate]

Your argument is that Hillary can swoop in and TAKE any domain ever registered with the word "Clinton" in it,

...

Say Hillary taps Joe Chair or Bob Man as her running mate in 2020.... you really think she has the RIGHT to seize ClintonChair.com or ClintonMan.com?

I never said such a thing. That's not how TM law works. Plenty of people are called Clinton. They will own Clinton domains in good faith and it's alright.
But when you own that particular domain Clinton Kaine, and you are even willing to sell it to Trump, it is a specific scenario.
Each domain is different and the circumstances matter.

Celebrities enjoy de facto TM rights, so do politicians. A registered TM is not a requirement to claim TM rights.

 

[Addison]

Cybersquatting and a UDRP are not the same

If someone loses a UDRP, it does not mean they are a cybersquatter. They are two different things entirely and cybersquatting would still need to be proven in a U.S. court. Unless you are a part of such a jury, labeling someone as a cybersquatter (especially incorrectly as has been done here) is libel.

Recap:

• As I've shown in this discussion, this domain name is not an example of cybersquatting by definition, practice, or law.
• As others have shown in this discussion, this domain would not be taken from the owner via UDRP.

A complainant in a UDRP proceeding must establish three elements to succeed:

1. The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
2. The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
3. The domain name has been registered and the domain name is being used in "bad faith".

The owner of this domain name has not violated any of those three:

1. The domain name is not identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark. No such marks exists and none are in use to establish common TM rights.
2. The registrant does have a legitimate interest in the domain name to display political comics on the website. That is 100% legal and a legitimate use of the domain name.
3. The domain name is not being used in bad faith: it's being used to show political comics.

The domain owner's UDRP attorney only has to prove one of the three things I said above to be true, and the entire case is thrown out.

Conclusion:

There is neither a valid claim to cybersquatting nor UDRP proceedings regarding this domain name. End of story.

 

[000]

If he (or any other lawyer) would state that this isn't a case that could be won, I will apologize. As it stands now, I consider this cybersquatting as two items have been met: 1) intent and 2) infringement on an established mark.

Here's what an ACTUAL LAWYER (of 20+ years) had to say about RomneyRyan.com in 2012.

Cheese & crackers, man! What more do you want?!

You're ignoring the words of a real lawyer so that you can continue to play lawyer yourself.

Seriously, what is the sense in that?


A little more about this real lawyer...

The World Trademark Review has said that he is “a whiz on all things to do with Internet law and domain names” (World’s Leading Trademark Professionals, 2015 edition); and theAtlanta Business Chronicle has called him an “international authority on Internet law”(September 22, 2006).

Doug has worked with clients on domain name transactions and disputes since 1996 and today represents some of the world’s largest and best-known brands with respect to their Internet legal matters.

He also serves as a domain name panelist for four of the world’s leading dispute providers (see below), including the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO).

Doug has written more than 200 decisions on domain name disputes.

Are YOU "a whiz on all things to do with Internet law and domain names"?
Are YOU an "international authority on Internet law”?
Are YOU a WIPO panelist?
Have YOU spent 20 YEARS working on domain dispute cases?

I think I'll side with the lawyer on this one...

 

[Amanda]

Please keep this thread on topic. I have cleaned up a few posts that have caused the thread to go off topic. Heated debate is fine however personal attacks and threats are not.

Please keep in mind that staff members are domain investors too and sometimes express their personal opinions in discussion threads. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion.

Thank you for understanding and I hope everyone has a great weekend.

 

[N-A]

I see your point, though, that's not entirely accurate pertaining to this thread.

It's completely accurate when it pertains to domaining in general. Is this a situational scenario that I'm unaware of?

@David Walker given that you're an experienced moderator, What do you think the best course of action for @CoalToNewCastle to do with ClintonKaine.com?

What does being a moderator of a forum have to do with this? Can I not have a personal opinion? Though, I'm not going to offer any advice, as I have none to give.

Look, I'm not here to butt heads with you. I merely posted this as an educational piece referring back to my answer to your first question: When it comes to domaining, cyber squatting or purchasing names, has generally been looked down upon. When we have characters like this who pop up with a success story, the whole tide turns; people will think they will be the lucky one and become copy cats. I've seen it, I've been around a while now.

 

[N-A]

You have every right to your opinion, and as a mod, that opinion weighs a little more to newbie NamePros members. I'm not trying to butt heads either, I just don't understand disliking somebody's very first NamePros post. Seems more reactive than proactive.

Let me first welcome @CoalToNewCastle to NamePros. Next, I'll state that "dislike" wasn't a personal attack.
Proper usage of the dislike button: https://www.namepros.com/threads/get-rid-of-dislike-button.941009/#post-5482151 (simply put, something that is not liked)

 

[000]

The domain is currently still held by the man who registered it 5 YEARS prior to the Clinton-Kaine ticket even existing. The domain can 100% be used and/or sold by this man, fair and square.


Those crying about some non-existent "TM issue" are absolutely off their rocker !!


Let me guess.......... Hillary supporters?! What, ya don't think she can afford $60,000 for a domain if she wants it? As we all know, she's literally spending hundreds of millions of dollars on promoting her campaign.


You want to talk about ethics while defending Hillary Clinton? Are you actually serious?!!


What a buncha trolls !!

 

[000]

None of this is relevant for ClintonKaine.com.

What you are implying is that the Clinton camp should reverse-hijack this domain.

Anyways, domains like microsoftgoogle.com, microsoftyahoo.com, googlebing.com are entirely different and you know it. Neither "Clinton" nor "Kaine" are at all comparable to Microsoft, Google, Yahoo, Bing. If you're going to provide examples, you should probably try a little harder and at least find sensible comparisons.

There are two trademarks on "Clinton": one is for printing paper and envelopes, and the other is for watches and watch movements.

Since you clearly think that Hillary somehow owns exclusive rights to the name "Clinton", riddle me this:

Why hasn't Hillary ever bothered to trademark "Clinton"?

Your argument and accusations are 100% baseless and 100% senseless.

 

[LucidDomains]

A complainant in a UDRP proceeding must establish three elements to succeed:

• The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
• The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
• The domain name has been registered and the domain name is being used in "bad faith".

Complainant needs to prove ALL 3 things, however:

If there is no TM on this domain or no one is using a similar domain or mark, then there's no issue.

Selling a domain for profit is a legitimate business practice, many panels have confirmed this previously.

He is using the site for political cartoons which is fair use.



There is no issue here whatsoever in my opinion. Good luck to the seller.

 

[LucidDomains]

A. Complainant contends that the domain name <juliaroberts.com> is identical to and confusingly similar with the name "Julia Roberts" and the common law trademark rights which she asserts in her name pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the domain name <juliaroberts.com> pursuant to the Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the domain name <juliaroberts.com> in bad faith in violation of the Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).

B. Respondent does not contest that the domain name <juliaroberts.com> is identical with and confusingly similar to Complainant�s name. Respondent does contest whether Complainant has common law trademark rights in her name. Respondent admits that he selected the domain name <juliaroberts.com> because of the well known actress.

Respondent contends that he has rights and legitimate interest in <juliaroberts.com> because of his registration and use of the domain name.

Respondent contends that his registration and use of <juliaroberts.com> is in good faith.





This isn't similar at all.

1. He is using the domain in fair use to make political commentary and/or cartoons and that Respondent for the JuliaRoberts.com case had no use whatsoever except to profit from the actresses name.

2. Also JuliaRoberts.com, which is one person (FIRSTNAME/SURENAME) and is unmistakable.

This is two peoples' (SURNAME/SURNAME) who after 4 years or so will probably not be in power.

This SURNAME/SURNAME also remind me of a recent UDRP of GOOGLENIKE.COM.

Who won that? The Respondent if I recall correctly. Two TM's have conflicting interests.

3. How is this domain passing off if it contains two SURNAMES' of two different people? It's not.