news Mike Mann lost LakesGas .com at the WIPO (ridiculous!)

[Dondomainer]

Mike Mann‘s asking price of $94,888 dollars for the domain LakesGas.com was referred to as “exorbitantly high” by the sole panelist at the WIPO who handled the UDRP.

and “This Panel takes notice that the estimated fair market value for this disputed domain name ranges from about USD 650 to about 2,300.”


Source: https://domaingang.com/domain-law/mike-mann-lost-udrp-over-generic-domain-lakesgas-com-at-the-wipo/

Comment : Everyone has lost here, no only Mike Mann.

We already knew that we were not sure, but this is an open statement of how much danger there is right now

 

[MapleDots]

And who gets to decide what is fair market value?
Appraisal tools?
Complainant?
Domain owner?

And should the market value actually determine rights to a domain?

Going down this rabbit hole is going to get messy.

The name was in use since 1959

There is no logical explanation why Lakes and gas was used in combination other than to sell it to the end user who has been using the name since 1959. It makes no sense in any other way and in my opinion the panelist that made the judgement saw this and ruled against Mr Mann.

I hate to say it..... believe me I hate saying it but.... in my opinion the panelist made the correct decision.

 

[Internet.Domains]

So we have entered an era where if a domain has an asking price above an appraisal tool it is subject to loss. Sad. Truly sad.

 

[tonyk2000]

I'd like to see the formula that the guy used to calculate the price.

I would not be surprised if GoDaddy appraisal tool helped him:

https://www.godaddy.com/domain-valu...eckAvail=1&tmskey=&domainToCheck=lakesgas.com

lakesgas.com
Estimated Value: $1,804

 

[Remi]

I would not be surprised if GoDaddy helped him:

https://www.godaddy.com/domain-valu...eckAvail=1&tmskey=&domainToCheck=lakesgas.com

lakesgas.com
Estimated Value: $1,804

Godaddy's appraisal tool seems to be doing more harm than good (my opinion)...

I've had deals that fell through because clients will only pay based on the tool's valuation...

 

[infosec3]

So now WIPO decisions have become a form of domain price regulation?

 

[MapleDots]

I agree. This was a bad decision.

Not so sure I agree with you on this one.

Am I the only one that sees what the panelist did?
I think there is definitely some merit to this decision.

=====================================================================
Complainant contends the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights. Complainant asserts that its trademark and tradename LAKES GAS has been used for almost sixty years, being first used in 1959, long before the January 8, 2011 registration of the disputed domain name by Respondent. Complainant further asserts that the addition of the top-level domain name is not a defense to a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s LAKES GAS trademark.

Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts Respondent does not have any applications or registrations for LAKES GAS nor is it commonly known by the name “Lakes Gas.” Complainant further asserts Respondent does not use and is not preparing to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or making legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name. Complainant contends the disputed domain name promotes or suggests a connection or relationship between Respondent and Complainant. Complainant asserts the unauthorized use of Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name undermines a claim of bona fide use under the Policy. Complainant asserts that Respondent chose to register the disputed domain name because of its significance vis-à-vis Complainant’s LAKES GAS trademark and Complainant’s associated goodwill and reputation.

======================================================================



As a domainer I hope to never be in a similar position but in this particular case Mann should have seen the obvious and released the domain at market value.

 

[Jv1999]

I dunno what sort of clown judges decide udrp cases, but mike Mann needs to appeal this.. too bad most domainers are allergic to retaining lawyers. Guess it comes with the wheeling and dealing mentality.

A panel of NEUTRAL judges are experts at law, they are not competent to ARBITRARILY decide the value of a domain. Any lawyer who took at least one class, even an online J.D. class, would know that you need a qualified expert to decide the industry standard for an industry!

And even if the panel were domainers (LOL THEY R NOT), it's just fkn inappropriate of them to step in and act as an expert witness. That s definitely not being neutral.

O my gad I gave a legal opinion, now gimme $800.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

I'd like to see the formula that the guy used to calculate the price.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Estimated fair market value is whatever the market will bear. Pegging a value in the $x,xxx is arbitrary at best.

 

[Internet.Domains]

The name was in use since 1959

There is no logical explanation why Lakes and gas was used in combination other than to sell it to the end user who has been using the name since 1959. It makes no sense in any other way and in my opinion the panelist that made the judgement saw this and ruled against Mr Mann.

I hate to say it..... believe me I hate saying it but.... in my opinion the panelist made the correct decision.

Fair enough. I have to say I have seen more disturbing decisions over the years. Although, the mention of price by the panelist sets a new precedent that is most disturbing in itself.

 

[tonyk2000]

Brian J. Winterfeldt
Sole Panelist
Date: June 21, 2019

(quote end).

A domainer should always order (and, yes, pay for) 3 members panel. Why did mr. Mann fail to do this? Any lost UDRP can be subsequently used against the Respondent (domainer) in other cases: "the Respondent is a proven cybersquatter, as found in other UDRP cases blah-blah-blah"

Panelist Winterfeldt, however, gained more customers. More Complainants will now request this panelist in 3-member panels. Pure business...

 

[korganian]

The asking price of the seller should not even be a factor in the judge's decision!!!

 

[Jasonn]

So now domains must be sold for "fair market value"? Whatever that is. What a joke.

 

[Internet.Domains]

Mann should have seen the obvious and released the domain at market value.

And who gets to decide what is fair market value?
Appraisal tools?
Complainant?
Domain owner?

And should the market value actually determine rights to a domain?

Going down this rabbit hole is going to get messy.

 

[Silentptnr]

I agree. This was a bad decision.

 

[korganian]

The panelist didn't say that though...

Actually that's exactly what the moron panelist said because he used that opinion to rule "bad faith" which was the foundation of his decision to transfer the domain. This panelist needs to be sued himself and barred from ever being a panelist again.

 

[biggie]

So we have entered an era where if a domain has an asking price above an appraisal tool it is subject to loss. Sad. Truly sad.

been warning you guys about this
https://www.namepros.com/threads/is...-1-500-on-godaddy.1141968/page-2#post-7284552

the more you use appraisal sites, the more power they will have over domain pricing.

imo...

 

[Kingslayer]

I see both sides to this, the domain belonged to M. Mann, he is/was the rightful owner and should never have had it took from him, but same time his asking price was unrealistic.

99.9% of this forum wouldn't value that domain $95k, so if that's the case and he's valuing the domain x100-x200 of it's actual worth, it's being unreasonable and extorting if you will.

I don't think there's anything to worry about personally as far a as trend going due to this part:-

"But this specific combination of words together has no real descriptive or generic meaning, and really only has meaning in the context of Complainant’s trademark.”

Most people do value their assets competitively (maybe slightly higher), i think problem is valuing x100 higher for something low class/reg fee.

M. Mann has made a living of doing that though, so maybe that could be a problem for him in the future if potential buyers of his assets look at this case.

 

[Silentptnr]

My feeling is that big companies, including utility companies, make millions and millions of dollars selling air, water, gas, etc. To me, it's BS that anyone can take away a domain because it's priced too high. That's ridiculous.

It appears to me that the panelist was set on giving the domain to the gas company.

I will tell you this. When I reg certain names, like energy, technology, etc, some of them I price based on what I believe the domain can do for those businesses.

It has already been determined that registering domain names for the purpose of selling at a profit is not bad faith in and of itself.

Who decided voice.com was worth 30,000,000. Could that same panelist have just said, hand over the name voice because the price is too high?

It's BS IMO...period.

What @biggie mentioned about these automated appraisals is correct. They are bad news. Not to mention that GD sells names for more than their appraised value all the time.

I hope Mike Mann fights this. The basis for the decision was very incorrect. IMO

I wouldn't have paid 100k for the domain, nor would I have paid 30,000,000 for any domain. But people do and no panel should set price limits.

 

[jamesosix]

hope for my shit domains yet then haha.

 

[ivey]

This is a tough call..

I disagree with much of the argument, because the panel cannot determine the domains value. The domain owner determines that...and if they ask too high then move on or negotiate. Even if the asking price was really excessive, that should not have any place to help make a judgement.

However, arguing about the valuation is a waste because that wasn't the core of why the domain owner lost the case. The core reason is because the company has been using that exact name/mark for over 60 years!
So it was determined to be a matter of bad faith. The price itself was added, because I don't know anyone here who would have asked that much for a name like that. As a matter of fact... we skip names like that in the drop list daily. I owned promoscode.com... I let it drop. But promocode.com would have been a different story. My point is this: The panel saw that the name was not just registered off a 60 year old established mark... but the price was boosted because the owner saw that wow, this is a gas company..94k is nothing to them. They make millions or billions right.....

It appears, that added wood to the fire..as if the company would have overlooked the questionable registration and purchased the name for a few thousand bucks. But they felt..you took our 60 year old mark and then on top of it, you're charging us a hand and a leg to use our own mark.

I think if the company was new and they filed for a trademark recently then the result would go in the favor of the domain owner. But i really think the gas company would of avoided going this route if they name was listed for lets say 5k to 10k. I think they took offense.

Edited/ addition: And if you look on hugedomains.com and maybe others..they often register peoples full names.. but they sell them low because they know it's a risk...but they know people would rather pay $695 than pay 4 figures and go through court for the name. So bad faith is not out of reach.

As long as these panels don't over reach and start robbing people of their names.

 

[NamesMax]

Regarding the Trademark: Trademarks are for specific uses, which is why many companies TM in more than one category. You TM the name AND how it is being used.

In this case, according to TESS on the US Patent and Trade Office website, Lakes Gas has 2 tm registered both for "IC 039. US 100 105. G & S: Fuel delivery services featuring propane and heating oil; storage, distribution and transportation of propane and heating oil"

I could theoretically start a gas exploration company named Lakes Gas and not be in TM violation.

As a matter of fact there is a company with a Similar name that would could be confusing since it is also in the gas industry called Great Lakes Trnsmission which also has a TM for use of:
IC 039. US 100 105. G & S: TRANSMISSION OF NATURAL AND SYNTHETIC GAS THROUGH PIPELINES.

One is delivery and the other is pipeline transmission. Both could benefit from this name, as would the theoretical gas exploration company.

Trademark law is not cut and dry in the United States.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

This is quite a ridiculous decision in another UDRP that Mike lost. Is owning the name of a place a trademark and can it be trademarked by Sears company?

Show attachment 124216

It says claim denied.

 

[korganian]

The wording and logic used in this case creates such a dangerous slippery slope that it should terrify all NP members. I am surprised to hear established members agree with this case. You have to look past the name in question and use your imagination as to how this wording and logic will be used to take your personal portfolio away from you in the future. It is hard to find any name or phrase that nobody in the history of mankind has ever used before. Also the opinion of high price is very subjective. Most people think $500 is too high for a domain name.