Threatening reply to an outbound email

[Trent1000]

I've received the following reply to one of my emails:

There is no trademark registered under the keywords of the domain name. He is not the previous/current owner of the domain name, I registered it after doing an in depth research on it. So it's almost funny as he says "my .com name".

The name is not even close with his business name / domain.
The domain is representing an industry with hundreds of potential end users, his domain is a terrible brandable.

I certainly haven't blackmailed him.

Should I take it seriously or is this a bluff to get the domain name for free? Never run into a situation like this before despite the fact that I sell domains on a weekly basis via outbound.

Advice would be appreciated.

 

[jberryhill]

better hope he did not have one of those "poor man's copyright" where he wrote a notarized letter (like 5) stating his intention to use the name or mark in the future and then mailed it to himself.

OMG. On the off chance that anyone believes that nonsense, please, nobody should take anything said by Avtar629 seriously. First off, the "poor man's copyright" thing is complete and utter nonsense of no legal value whatsoever. Secondly, copyright and trademark are two entirely different things. No, you don't obtain rights in anything by mailing stuff to yourself. It's beyond stupid for too many reasons to even point out, but some of which should be obvious to anyone with a brain.

As far as the OP goes, as others have pointed out, there is no such thing as a the "federal copyright commission" and copyright is, again, not at all relevant.

Seriously, the best thing anyone here can do: If you don't know the difference between "copyright" and the sorts of things to which it applies; and "trademark" and the sorts of things to which it applies; then please go learn the difference between those two different things. It will avoid having you sound as tremendously stupid as this person going on about the "federal copyright commission".

Now, that said, it sometimes happens that tremendously stupid and ignorant people defy the odds and manage to stumble their way to the helm of a substantial business. In fact, it happens quite a bit, and there are some reasons why. But, without going into the social dynamics of how that works, these tremendously stupid and ignorant people who nonetheless have found themselves in charge of a substantial business can be adept at hiring smart people to manage aspects of that business. So, yes, it can certainly turn out that the person who sent the email does not know the difference between his ass and a turnip. However, he may be dimly aware that he paid a lawyer to do something he does not completely understand or can competently articulate.

So, as usual, absent knowing more facts about the situation, it is not really possible to know if (a) the guy is simply a harmless blowhard idiot, or (b) the guy might actually have a claim of some kind, but he is too stupid to accurately communicate whatever that claim might be.

Odds are, it would be (a), but there is not enough information here to affirmatively rule out (b).

 

[Recons.Com]

OMG. On the off chance that anyone believes that nonsense, please, nobody should take anything said by Avtar629 seriously. First off, the "poor man's copyright" thing is complete and utter nonsense of no legal value whatsoever. Secondly, copyright and trademark are two entirely different things. No, you don't obtain rights in anything by mailing stuff to yourself. It's beyond stupid for too many reasons to even point out, but some of which should be obvious to anyone with a brain.

As far as the OP goes, as others have pointed out, there is no such thing as a the "federal copyright commission" and copyright is, again, not at all relevant.

Seriously, the best thing anyone here can do: If you don't know the difference between "copyright" and the sorts of things to which it applies; and "trademark" and the sorts of things to which it applies; then please go learn the difference between those two different things. It will avoid having you sound as tremendously stupid as this person going on about the "federal copyright commission".

Now, that said, it sometimes happens that tremendously stupid and ignorant people defy the odds and manage to stumble their way to the helm of a substantial business. In fact, it happens quite a bit, and there are some reasons why. But, without going into the social dynamics of how that works, these tremendously stupid and ignorant people who nonetheless have found themselves in charge of a substantial business can be adept at hiring smart people to manage aspects of that business. So, yes, it can certainly turn out that the person who sent the email does not know the difference between his ass and a turnip. However, he may be dimly aware that he paid a lawyer to do something he does not completely understand or can competently articulate.

So, as usual, absent knowing more facts about the situation, it is not really possible to know if (a) the guy is simply a harmless blowhard idiot, or (b) the guy might actually have a claim of some kind, but he is too stupid to accurately communicate whatever that claim might be.

Odds are, it would be (a), but there is not enough information here to affirmatively rule out (b).

This guy is a great lawyer, but his writing is like poetry pure joy ))

 

[vravis9]

@Trent1000 for sure it's bluff...

Ignore it...

You can give some thought if you receive second email with any valid info...

Untill then LOL

 

[RogueWriter]

turn it into a porn site .

You’re awful lol.

 

[Brian L.]

I've received the following reply to one of my emails:

Show attachment 122359
There is no trademark registered under the keywords of the domain name. He is not the previous/current owner of the domain name, I registered it after doing an in depth research on it. So it's almost funny as he says "my .com name".

The name is not even close with his business name / domain.
The domain is representing an industry with hundreds of potential end users, his domain is a terrible brandable.

I certainly haven't blackmailed him.

Should I take it seriously or is this a bluff to get the domain name for free? Never run into a situation like this before despite the fact that I sell domains on a weekly basis via outbound.

Advice would be appreciated.

Just par for the course when doing outbound marketing. Don’t respond to emails like this. Consult an attorney if you receive a claim from an attorney or paralegal with a legitimate law firm, but everything else is just nonsense.

 

[MadAboutDomains]

Enjoyed reading @jberryhill's response to this. I like the fact that the person sending that email thought they could retrospectively "copy right" whatever term is in question. Funny stuff.

 

[keston57]

Containing is a funny business, once had a guy ask me how we were going to sign the papers if I am not in the same city with him, nothing I explained made sense to him, he finally concluded that I was a scammer and that he was going to report me to the police, I just had to let go of the transaction.
To some people they think buying a name must involve both of you sitting at a table, sign some documents and you packaging the name in a parcel and handing it over to them. This kind of mentality more than anything makes the business very tough.

 

[lock]

casually put the price up 5% each month.

 

[lock]

Containing is a funny business, once had a guy ask me how we were going to sign the papers if I am not in the same city with him, nothing I explained made sense to him, he finally concluded that I was a scammer and that he was going to report me to the police, I just had to let go of the transaction.
To some people they think buying a name must involve both of you sitting at a table, sign some documents and you packaging the name in a parcel and handing it over to them. This kind of mentality more than anything makes the business very tough.

Where can I download it? is the other one.

 

[Ategy]

... So, yes, it can certainly turn out that the person who sent the email does not know the difference between his ass and a turnip...

So, as usual, absent knowing more facts about the situation, it is not really possible to know if (a) the guy is simply a harmless blowhard idiot, or (b) the guy might actually have a claim of some kind, but he is too stupid to accurately communicate whatever that claim might be.

Seriously @jberryhill .. your talent is completely wasted on the law ... you really should have been a poet!

I think most people here are overthinking things .. this guy is likely just some ignorant idiot who has no clue what he's talking about and is just upset that a domain he didn't even know he wanted until now is not available at HandReg.

 

[~ The 34 Year Buzz!!]

if you stop send spam solicitations then you won't get those type of replies

imo...

Yes, one person made first contact.

 

[webdomainhub]

My own experience with copyright/trademark infringement. A few years back, I registered a domain name with the word Sprint (the phone company) in it. I built a site around it and got to the number one spot within a few weeks and was earning some nice CPA commissions. Within days I received an email from a Sprint lawyer requesting me to take the website down. It was an ordinary and polite unofficial email. I replied by telling them that I will comply if he can send me an official email with the letter head of the law firm so that I know it's genuine. They promptly send me an official one and I took down the website immediately with no further actions on their part. What I learnt from this is that real copyright/trademark claims will come from lawyers and they will be professional at it. If you are not satisfied that the initial claim is from a genuine source, ask for an official one like I did. I highly doubt that copyright claim will come in the form of threats. I may be wrong but this is what I experienced and hope it helps.

 

[Mr. Deleted]

better hope he did not have one of those "poor man's copyright" where he wrote a notarized letter (like 5) stating his intention to use the name or mark in the future and then mailed it to himself.

Same as the "poor man's patent" I think?

Not sure if it would hold up in court though.

My old friend does that, but the funny thing is, a copyright is relatively cheap, at about 20 dollars last I copyrighted a song in the 90s.

 

[artstar]

copyright is simply noted by the words copyright and the year.

 

[HotKey]

To some people they think buying a name must involve both of you sitting at a table, sign some documents and you packaging the name in a parcel and handing it over to them. This kind of mentality more than anything makes the business very tough.

Depending on the domain value and relationship established with buyer, this is not so unheard of. A $2000 plane ticket to meet at an upscale restaurant or hotel for a million dollar domain transaction not so far-fetched, its peanuts for that kind of deal, to qualm any buyer hesitation. For many, this might be the one and only domain purchase of that caliber in their lifetime.

On the other hand, for a $100 sale, you better live on the same street as me and the coffee shop is right on the corner, if you want to push papers.

 

[jberryhill]

My old friend does that, but the funny thing is, a copyright is relatively cheap, at about 20 dollars last I copyrighted a song in the 90s.

This business of mailing things to oneself does not prove anything. Why not simply mail yourself an unsealed envelope, and then you can put whatever you like into it at a later time?

But how is this supposed to work? One sues someone for copyright infringement and is allowed to show up in court with a sealed envelope, open it and “Voila!” everyone is amazed as you pull your original work out of it? Is everyone supposed to bring along their own forensic team there on the spot to confirm that the envelope or it’s contents are genuine?

It’s just bizarre, and is based on a cartoon version of reality. Evidence at trial does not work that way. Do people think this has ever proved anything to anyone in an actual legal proceeding?

 

[Ramesh Kumar G]

For Instance, Say " Google " as an example ... !

Is there any Law/Rule any where on the globe that we Must not register " google.Xyz " (if it is available for registration ) ?
And Thus ...
Is there Any Law/Rule that i should surrender the domain to " google " if they demand it.... ?

If Google Wants the Domain from me ,
Should they be Purchasing it from me ?
Or,
They can approach Court and get the domain name from me through Court orders ?

 

[bmugford]

For Instance, Say " Google " as an example ... !

Is there any Law/Rule any where on the globe that we Must not register " google.Xyz " (if it is available for registration ) ?
And Thus ...
Is there Any Law/Rule that i should surrender the domain to " google " if they demand it.... ?

If Google Wants the Domain from me ,
Should they be Purchasing it from me ?
Or,
They can approach Court and get the domain name from me through Court orders ?

Big companies have many legal remedies when it comes to enforcing their famous trademarks.
(C&D, UDRP, Lawsuits, etc.).

They also have the staff and resources to defend their trademarks.

There are many laws and courts to enforce those laws. You are not going to win a game of lawyerball vs actual lawyers when it comes to obvious infringing domains.

Just avoid famous brands, especially ones without an obvious generic use.
It is playing with fire to mess with domains like your example.

Brad

 

[Ramesh Kumar G]

Big companies have many legal remedies when it comes to enforcing their famous trademarks.
(C&D, UDRP, Lawsuits, etc.).

They also have the staff and resources to defend their trademarks.

There are many laws and courts to enforce those laws. You are not going to win a game of lawyerball vs actual lawyers when it comes to obvious infringing domains.

Just avoid famous brands, especially ones without an obvious generic use.
It is playing with fire to mess with domains like your example.

Brad

My Intent behind Putting This Forward is ...
ICANN is a completely separate organisation where any one can register any domains they want, even if the domains belongs to what ever size of already existing company names.
The Ethical and Judicial issues arise depending up on What ,Why, Where & How the Domain is used on Commercial grounds.

I can register " Earth.xyz " though some one have trademarks on " Earth.com " as a company.
The only Judicial factor is .. I must not use " Earth.XYZ " domain to exploit their Concepts and procedures of business and gain commercially using their Brand Name.
And so do my products/services/content must not encounter with theirs for which they have rights on.

I don't recommend any one to Foolishly buy Google.xyz, or Facebook.xyz , Amazon.xyz .. etc
My intent behind saying this is ...
No google , No Facebook , No ebay can threaten you to surrender the domain name for free
as per Law. If Such threatening Occurs, All you need to do is Consult a proper Lawyer who knows Law very well.

 

[bmugford]

My Intent behind Putting This Forward is ...
ICANN is a completely separate organisation where any one can register any domains they want, even if the domains belongs to what ever size of already existing company names.
The Ethical and Judicial issues arise depending up on What ,Why, Where & How the Domain is used on Commercial grounds.

I can register " Earth.xyz " though some one have trademarks on " Earth.com " as a company.
The only Judicial factor is .. I must not use " Earth.XYZ " domain to exploit their Concepts and procedures of business and gain commercially using their Brand Name.
And so do my products/services/content must not encounter with theirs for which they have rights on.

I don't recommend any one to Foolishly buy Google.xyz, or Facebook.xyz , Amazon.xyz .. etc
My intent behind saying this is ...
No google , No Facebook , No ebay can threaten you to surrender the domain name for free
as per Law. If Such threatening Occurs, All you need to do is Consult a proper Lawyer who knows Law very well.

Well, you are playing lawyerball without being a lawyer. Good luck with that.

What do you mean by "threaten"?

First you would likely get a C&D, then possibly a UDRP, then maybe a lawsuit asking for $100,000 in damages under ACPA. Can a company force you to turn over a domain? Sure, via the legal system where they have actual lawyers that understand the law and process.

Also, "Earth" is obviously an extremely generic term that no one party can claim exclusive use over.

Brad

 

[Ramesh Kumar G]

It is understood that any idiot with Improper intentions can file a case on any grounds on any one unless it is defended well.
But, In this context, Just Causally Asking :
How Can Some One ( be it a company ) think they can win a Lawsuit of $ 100,000 when no damage done in any context ?
i.e if a company trademarked a name as a business and some X registered the same name as an Internet Domain under ICANN but never used it for any business purpose !
Say Recently ,
LIBRA is trademarked by FaceBook. Does that mean all the Libra domains must be handed Over to Face Book for free if Mark Zuck want them all ?

-------
" Threaten " is in relation to the words used by the e mailer in the above Email mesage of this main thread.

 

[jberryhill]

It is understood that any idiot with Improper intentions can file a case

It is also understood that a whole lot of idiots register domain names corresponding to well known trademarks.

How Can Some One ( be it a company ) think they can win a Lawsuit of $ 100,000 when no damage done in any context ?

Because, in the US, that's exactly what the relevant law says:

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1117

(d) Statutory damages for violation of section 1125(d)(1)

In a case involving a violation of section 1125(d)(1) of this title, the plaintiff may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered by the trial court, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages in the amount of not less than $1,000 and not more than $100,000 per domain name, as the court considers just.

---

That reference to 1125(d)(1) is to 15 usc 1125(d)(1) which is the section of US trademark law which addresses cybersquatting. So, yes, the $100k is "instead of actual damages".

i.e if a company trademarked a name as a business and some X registered the same name as an Internet Domain under ICANN but never used it for any business purpose !

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/#item33

3.3. Can the “passive holding” or non-use of a domain name support a finding of bad faith?

From the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding.

While panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case, factors that have been considered relevant in applying the passive holding doctrine include: (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark, (ii) the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, (iii) the respondent’s concealing its identity or use of false contact details (noted to be in breach of its registration agreement), and (iv) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put.

 

[equity78]

This business of mailing things to oneself does not prove anything. Why not simply mail yourself an unsealed envelope, and then you can put whatever you like into it at a later time?

But how is this supposed to work? One sues someone for copyright infringement and is allowed to show up in court with a sealed envelope, open it and “Voila!” everyone is amazed as you pull your original work out of it? Is everyone supposed to bring along their own forensic team there on the spot to confirm that the envelope or it’s contents are genuine?

It’s just bizarre, and is based on a cartoon version of reality. Evidence at trial does not work that way. Do people think this has ever proved anything to anyone in an actual legal proceeding?

Yeah it's funny John and anyone subscribing to that fact would find the first reply on Google stating:

The humorless federal copyright office explains on its website, “The practice of sending a copy of your own work to yourself is sometimes called a 'poor man's copyright.' ... A draft of your novel, for example, is copyrighted without you having to mail anything anywhere. That means that it is legally recognized as yours.May 2, 2014
Poor man's copyright: Mailing something to yourself doesn't work.

https://slate.com/.../poor-mans-copyright-mailing-something-to-yourself-doesnt-work.ht...

 

[jberryhill]

anyone subscribing to that fact would find the first reply on Google stating

Ah, but what if that's what they WANT you to think!

 

[Ramesh Kumar G]

All the Above Documents are Clearly talking about ...
Counterfeiting, Miss Use, Damage/Bad faith, Direct Misuse of trademarked Objects through website Or Indirect Misuse through Internet Tools that come with the domain name. .....

" Panelists will look at the totality of the circumstances in each case ".... This line sumsup everything.

I don't think Mark Zuckerberg can get Facebook.NET from Mr. X through using legal clauses.
He Still have to pay the BIN price on Sedo or Flippa if he thinks he need the Dot Net of it...
Like he payed Few million dollars to buy " FaceBook.com " from Mr. Y as he used to have only " TheFaceBook.com " during the launch of his Social Media Business.

I am talking about Domain Registering ( as creative Name Finding in connection to Godaddy / NetworkSolutions etc ... ) as a business by itself which is just limited to holding the name and reselling... Not about how to do business on internet using brand image of trademarked names.

I dont think , Some one can Trademark " Earth " and hence can think he owns the planet and so no one on the planet should use anything related to Earth...... Joke !