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/

 

[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.

 

[N-A]

And then read what happened with BruceSpringsteen.com

This case is much more different than ClintonKaine.com.

(i) The first circumstance is that there is evidence that the Registrant obtained the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring it to the Complainant or to a competitor. This can be dealt with swiftly. There is simply no evidence put forward by the Complainant that there has been any attempt by Mr Burgar to sell the domain name, either directly or indirectly.

The primary purpose of ClintonKaine, as stated by the owner, is selling it.

(ii) The second circumstance is that the Registrant obtained the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting that mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that there has been a pattern of such conduct. In this case, Bruce Springsteen�s representatives point to the many other celebrity domain names registered by Mr Burgar as evidence that he has indulged in a pattern of this conduct.

He said he would even sell it to Trump...

 

[LucidDomains]

Major difference between SURNAME/SURNAME.com (of two people) and FIRSTNAME/SURNAME.com (of one person)

In my opinion.


OK.

Find me a previous case where the Complainant won where it was SURNAME/SURNAME.com.

 

[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...

 

[martinrussell]

This case is much more different than ClintonKaine.com.
The primary purpose of ClintonKaine, as stated by the owner, is selling it.
He said he would even sell it to Trump...

@David Walker Yes. I posted BruceSpringsteen.com as contrast.

 

[Kate]

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

I could be wrong but I'm not making comments out of thin air. I have read a lot of UDRP decisions, so I have a rough idea of what is a plausible case, and what is going to be difficult to defend.
It's easy to make grand statements when you're not holding the hot potato and facing legal risk... Some people just don't care about the possible consequences of their advice. I'd rather err on the side of caution.

The fact remains that celebrities tend to prevail in UDRP. Not all the time, because it depends on the domain, and the circumstances. But here we are discussing only one specific domain, not making blanket statements on 'clinton' domains. Each case has to be assessed separately.
Hillary is no stranger to UDRP and she won. On the other hand Bill lost, because the circumstances were different but it's interesting to compare the two decisions.

The owner of this domain has already created a legitimate website with the domain name, and he is fully within his rights to also offer it for sale if he wants.

At which point the initial good faith may cease to exist... Just because a name was initially registered in good faith doesn't mean you can start using it in bad faith without risk. Yes, there are examples in UDRP.

In other news Trump threatened to sue over Trump2016.com. Was he right ? I don't know but he can still sue you if that is what you want. Even if he doesn't win you will lose sleep and money for nothing. Choose your battles wisely. Those people have firepower.

Now even if you think the owner is in the right ask yourself, honestly: would you put your own money on the case and fight for this domain.

Disclaimer: quoting posts is not a personal attack but healthy debate.

 

[000]

Obviously, nothing in this thread is LEGAL ADVICE...

Let me ask you, @Kate...
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?

If not, why are you disregarding the words of an experienced domain lawyer and continuing to spew your own conflicting advice?

 

[Kate]

I am not dismissing the lawyer.
I am just saying each case is different, making generalizations is hazardous.
He's commenting on a domain that hasn't been tested in court, based on limited information.
At least you posted a case that is comparable, thanks for that. But I think it's still the same thing: the owner just wanted to sell the domain, to anybody who would pay. They would have a hard time proving good faith if they were challenged to.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligence...com-peter-crowley.html?mid=twitter_dailyintel

Now, slightly off-topic (?), but do such names ever sell ? If they don't, but attract UDRPs and lawsuit threats then there is no upside. The actual merits of the domain are somewhat abstract and rhetorical.

 

[hookbox]

@CoalToNewCastle

This election is not about ClintonKaine vs TrumpPence it's about Clinton vs Trump so honestly they could care less about this domain. There is only 101 days left until election day so take your best offer in the next few weeks and call it a day. It will be worthless sooner than you think.

 

[mad409]

The owner of this domain registered it by speculating Clinton would run for President after Obama's term, admittedly said he knew Kaine was on Obama's short list of VP pic's.

He also advised that he'd prefer to sell the domain to the highest bidder rather than leaving the site up, it says for-sale on the site.

The domain could easily be taken away with a UDRP, even without a trademark if in fact they wanted it. I'm not sure they do, or even care therefore my advice to the owner is if you have a buyer sell it ASAP.

I'm not giving legal advice, nor am I a know it all but I've had issues with this type stuff and have learned a little along the way.

I also learned back in 1998 how big money can take a domain away from you with a UDRP, high powered attorneys. Even though I thought I was in the right, no way I could fight the power I was up against. Today maybe but not back then.

The actions and comments from the owner would be determined that the domain was registered in bad faith IMO.

Now with all that being said there could have been things he could have done differently that would have helped him protect himself but won't get in to that here.

 

[mad409]

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

This may be the case now but wasn't back in 1998, got proof of that!

• 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.

 

[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....

 

[WilsonM]

The thread is sure getting more interesting.

And thanks all for posting previous cases as I was not aware of most.

Also let's refrain from name calling and pulling each other down with barbs.

Let's just have a conversation like mature adults and pros.

 

[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.

 

[Samujjal]

:o ...everything's heating up...in this thread

 

[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.

 

[domainsonmain.com]

Oh wow. The owner is a Trademark Attorney. Now hear the chorus of a thousand NP'ers: "Oh damn."

Now what about a name like ClintonAdministration.com? Is that UDRP material?

 

[ksusha64]

He is most likely not get anything for the domain. I would take $5k and be happy with.

 

[decades80]

Oh wow. The owner is a Trademark Attorney. Now hear the chorus of a thousand NP'ers: "Oh damn."

Now what about a name like ClintonAdministration.com? Is that UDRP material?

Sorry but this is shallow argument. I dont want to get into debate, but its like saying: "Psychiatrists dont make suicides." Or saying: "He is a cop, how could he robbed the bank?"

 

[decades80]

Just wanted to add I am on nobody"s side. The arguments from both sides are equally strong. The UDRP is very specific category and not general. Even there is a case which could be an UDRP, when its never under UDRP procedure its actually not existing within the cybersquatting category. And even when its taken to UDRP its all about creativity of respondent. Bad faith is very narrow category and several things must be proven beyond the doubt. Hope we can all agree on that. .

 

[domainsonmain.com]

Sorry but this is shallow argument. I dont want to get into debate, but its like saying: "Psychiatrists dont make suicides." Or saying: "He is a cop, how could he robbed the bank?"

Was simply pointing out the highly coincidental nature of the outcome on this thread. Not making an argument about anything with that statement. Here people are debating the TM issue and all the while the owner is a trademark attorney. Had a bit of a chuckle myself when I read his message.

 

[decades80]

Was simply pointing out the highly coincidental nature of the outcome on this thread. Not making an argument about anything with that statement. Here people are debating the TM issue and all the while the owner is a trademark attorney. Had a bit of a chuckle myself when I read his message.

I cant bet on his proficiency about TM law, but usually big and successful TM lawyers dont sell domains that would raise ANY questions and they are not participating on Domain Forums imo...
We simply dont know, like I dont know the "reputation" of a plumber if I dont see reviews first. Maybe Clinton has wunderkinds in TM law, who attended Harvard or Yale at the age of 15. I simply dont know. Lets discuss this when and if it comes there, righty?

At the moment its quite irrelevant which degree he has. If it comes to an UDRP before he sells it, we can reopen this thread.

 

[wot]

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.

That cracked me up, really going to enjoy my golf this morning in sunny Thailand,thanks.

A little traffic is spinning off to ClinKaine.com as well although I am not betting the bank on a sale,just a fun ride on coat tails for a while.

 

[maya-zir]

Could somebody explain me who all these people and why this domain worth so much?