alert Why You Can't Trust GoDaddy Brokers

[jberryhill]

It is important to understand that GoDaddy brokers are not working for you.

I'm currently defending a UDRP which, although it will be an easy win for the domain registrant, would have been completely unnecessary if GoDaddy was honest with its own customer.

In the course of fielding an inquiry to buy a domain name, GoDaddy broker John Campanaro received this email:

The "buyer" was claiming to have a trademark and threatening legal action.

Now, in the course of this negotiation, the parties ended up being extremely close. The margin between the final offer of the "buyer" and the domain registrant was around $1000.

Had GoDaddy's customer realized that the "buyer" was now claiming to have a trademark and threatening legal action, that would have given GoDaddy's customer an opportunity to consider whether to lower their offer simply to avoid a frivolous legal dispute, or at least to have some warning that GoDaddy knew what the "buyer" was going to do next.

So, what did GoDaddy broker John Campanaro do next?

He lied:

If you were formerly a Uniregistry customer and have been moved to GoDaddy, you need to understand that some very basic principles of customer service did not survive that transfer.

GoDaddy will withhold information from you, and will not tell you if the other side in a negotiation is making legal threats, so that you can make a rational and informed decision. Instead, they will drive you right over the cliff and even, as happened in the longer course of this negotiation, make up stuff, attribute it to you, and then it will turn up in a UDRP or other legal dispute filed against you.

GoDaddy will dig a hole and push you right in.

 

[bmugford]

Hope John will win this one. As far as I remember, there were UDRP cases where the Compainant(s) made offers (above so-called "out of pocket" costs) before starting UDRP, and this fact was successfully used against Complainant(s), as they did not sincerely beleive that their mark was infridged or something...

This seems like the classic "Plan B" filing.

They make no initial mention of a TM. Only after the other party does not agree to a price, then do they bring up the TM threat.

The funny thing is even the potential buyer admitted their offer "was well in excess of any out of pocket costs".

It is apparently only a TM issue over $5K, some arbitrary number they have decided on.

That doesn't make much sense.

Brad

 

[bmugford]

Businesses: Do Not Abuse the UDRP as Your “Plan B” for Acquiring a Domain Name – With John Berryhill
​

If you think you can file a UDRP case to get control of a domain name after failing to negotiate the acquisition, think again.

The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) was put in place to streamline the process to resolve disputes between trademark holders and domain name registrants where the registration was clearly abusive, predatory and ill motivated.

Unless you can prove the three UDRP criteria, you may be labeled a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker by an international legal panel, face public documentation of the finding, and be exposed to potential legal action.

https://www.domainsherpa.com/john-berryhill-udrp-interview/

 

[Future Sensors]

Not only was this GoDaddy broker John Campanaro lying to both parties, he was also living in his own fantasy brokerage world, and was apparently so naive that he didn't realize that all his emails would be meticulously documented during the UDRP process.

 

[Josh Bond]

Brushing aside the failed fiduciary duty by the broker, according to the Complainant's logic, it's not ok for the Respondent to ask $7,500 - $25,000 for this domain because it exceeds out of pocket costs.

However, it is ok for the Respondent to accept $5,000 because it exceeds out of pocket costs. Thus, this argument really isn't about out of pocket costs. Paragraphs 38-40 are about accepting a valuation the Complainant agrees with rather than bad faith.

So, what do you suppose the buyer claimed in their UDRP complaint?

Show attachment 237857

 

[karmaco]

I never could understand involving a broker in anything that isn’t a high figure situation. You can’t trust them and they are NOT working on your behalf. This is one scenario. Imagine all the others we don’t know about.

The minimum that can be gleaned from this story is brokers at GoDaddy can and do lie. Handle your own leads.

 

[jberryhill]

This seems like the classic "Plan B" filing.

It's a bad one. The registrant acquired the domain name in 2006 and the complainant didn't exist until 2022, so the overwhelming majority of UDRP panelists would decide there was no bad faith. At a minimum.

What is irritating is that it didn't need to happen in the first place.

Had the domain registrant been made aware of the TM threat, it would have been a lot simpler to explain to the buyer why that dog wouldn't hunt. The person corresponding as the buyer was an IT guy, who obviously knew nothing about trademarks, and he could have at least been prompted to go find a clue, or provided with enough uncertainty that paying another $1500 would have been a lot easier for them.

Brushing aside the failed fiduciary duty by the broker, according to the Complainant's logic, it's not ok for the Respondent to ask $7,500 - $25,000 for this domain because it exceeds out of pocket costs.

However, it is ok for the Respondent to accept $5,000 because it exceeds out of pocket costs. Thus, this argument really isn't about out of pocket costs. Paragraphs 38-40 are about accepting a valuation the Complainant agrees with rather than bad faith.

Yes, that is the classic Plan B UDRP complaint in a nutshell. There are a gajillion cases on it:

CAMPER, S.L. v. Detlev Kasten
Case No. D2005-0056 <camper.com>
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-0056.html

The matter can be approached another way. What would the Complainant have done if the Respondent had accepted the Complainant’s offer of €3,000 for the Domain Name? Would the Complainant have sought to use the Respondent’s acceptance as an indication of bad faith registration and use? If €3,000 was a proper offer to make to the Respondent, why was €45,000 not a proper riposte from the Respondent? Where would it have been appropriate to draw the line?

In the Panel’s view, there is no sensible line that can be drawn. In the circumstances of this case, the mere pricing of the Domain Name at a very high level cannot in itself indicate bad faith at the time of registration.

The idiots that file these things act as if what they offered is "the good faith price", whereas any counteroffer is the "bad faith price", and the UDRP panel is supposed to be a price arbitration board.

The UDRP case is more of an unfortunate nuisance here than a real threat, but it did not have to go this way, and would not have gone this way if GoDaddy didn't drive their own customers - both sides here - over a cliff.

 

[CDM]

Wow, thank you for sharing John. This is very eye opening, extremely appreciated, and very beneficial for us domainers to have some transparency into such a negotiation. The amount and level of fabrications spun up by the broker is shocking to say the least.

I noted in Campanaro's email sig his title of "Senior" domain broker and it's not reassuring of GoDaddy that there was insufficient oversight, checks, or lack of training to allow him to advance to a Senior level in the company with such a blatant lack of ethics, as one can only assume this wasn't the first time for such fabrications, but rather that they finally caught up to him.

On that note, if he has a conscience at all which I hope he does, I'm sure this is coming as a heavy life lesson and I hope he is able to humble himself and take the tough medicine of facing the repercussions of his actions on others as well as himself, and take it as an opportunity to rectify whatever it is in his life that lead him to feel the need to engage in such deceit.

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive

 

[Future Sensors]

On that note, if he has a conscience at all which I hope he does, I'm sure this is coming as a heavy life lesson and I hope he is able to humble himself and take the tough medicine of facing the repercussions of his actions on others as well as himself, and take it as an opportunity to rectify whatever it is in his life that lead him to feel the need to engage in such deceit.

Perhaps the hardest lesson for him is that he now takes center stage in this UDRP. It's like being on the front page of the newspaper.

 

[jberryhill]

I think the broker acted unprofessionally, to say the least.

Another thing worth considering here is that GoDaddy is the registrar for the domain name. When the buyer started claiming it was an abusive registration, then it should have been converted to an abuse complaint. At least in THAT situation, GoDaddy would have told the registrant that they'd received one.

 

[biggie]

This industry definitely needs a serious competitor to root out godaddy's tyranny and monopoly!

Hi

the problem with that is:

some of those that start competing, end up selling out to godaddy.

like unireg, dan, smartname and even dn academy.

imo....

 

[biggie]

Another thing worth considering here is that GoDaddy is the registrar for the domain name. When the buyer started claiming it was an abusive registration, then it should have been converted to an abuse complaint. At least in THAT situation, GoDaddy would have told the registrant that they'd received one.

Hi

that's a good point, but wouldn't such a complaint have to go thru different channel?

still, it shows the lack of communication inside or they have some who aren't willing to go the extra mile to perfection.

imo...

 

[jberryhill]

that's a good point, but wouldn't such a complaint have to go thru different channel?

Typically abuse complaints are expected through the designated abuse contact. In the context of someone who is actually paying a fee to communicate to GoDaddy, one might expect their communications to receive thoughtful attention.

I think someone holding themselves out as a sales professional should be able to distinguish between a sales offer and a settlement offer of a legal threat.

GoDaddy simply has no incentive to care.

 

[Peter45]

Mr. Berryhill is one of the top in his field.

He doesn't need to disclose his fee publicly.

That's obvious J.R.
I wasn't asking him to disclose anything, rather I was asking you where the $5.000 figure that you mentioned came from

This unethical action on the part of the broker has already cost the seller at least $5K in legal fees.

because you make it look like his minimum legal fees were $5k.
So why $5k J.R.?

 

[BostonDomainer]

Thank you for warning the community @jberryhill I have my horror story in 2021 hence my GD exit.

Seems that Godaddy is rebranding back to NoDaddy at full speed. For those unfamiliar with the dark side of Godaddy..... NoDaddy.com part 2 needed?

https://www.theregister.com/2011/07/12/godaddy_shuts_down_nodaddy/

 

[Future Sensors]

I wasn't asking him to disclose anything, rather I was asking you where the $5.000 figure that you mentioned came from

This not only concerns lawyer fees, but also the costs of filing the case at WIPO.

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/fees/

 

[Samer]

This not only concerns lawyer fees, but also the costs of filing the case at WIPO.

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/fees/

I believe there are three venues.
Hat tip Spase.io failures in 2021 via DNW.
SOMETIMES THE SYSTEM WORKS. Spase.io is the worst!!

https://domainnamewire.com/2021/05/07/spase-inc-loses-cybersquatting-dispute-for-a-third-time/

 

[Future Sensors]

@jberryhill I forgot, who should pay the costs of additional WIPO panelists? The one who requests it?

 

[Samer]

.

 

[tonyk2000]

Another thing worth considering here is that GoDaddy is the registrar for the domain name.

If so, GoDaddy may now charge the registrant $50 "administrative fee" for UDRP, which was caused *at least partially* by actions of their own broker:

https://www.thedomains.com/2013/12/...ome-customers-50-if-they-get-hit-with-a-udrp/

An old article, but the following still can be found in T&C:

GoDaddy also reserves the right to charge you reasonable “administrative” fees" for (i) tasks GoDaddy may perform outside the normal scope of its Services, (ii) additional time and/or costs GoDaddy may incur in providing its Services, and/or (iii) your noncompliance with this Agreement (as determined by GoDaddy in its sole and absolute discretion). Typical administrative or processing fee scenarios include, but are not limited to (i) customer service issues that require additional personal time or attention; (ii) UDRP actions(s) in connection with your domain name(s) and/or disputes that require accounting or legal services, whether performed by GoDaddy staff or by outside firms retained by GoDaddy; ... These administrative fees or processing fees will be billed to the Payment Method you have on file with GoDaddy.

 

[D Haynes]

Doesn't work like that.

Its totally fair to hold the broker accountable for his actions.

When you are fraudulent, you don't get to say, "but they are fraudulent too."

What sort of low quality and deceptive behavior are you trying to condone?

I'm not condoning anything. Just stating that there's almost certainly an issue with the way the company approachs brokerage as a whole (as is probably the case in most industries where brokers are involved), and this case is a product of that. I'm not saying the individual broker shouldn't be held accountable for his action. Don't be so quick to jump to conclusions about someone's opinion. I'm merely stating things that should be obvious to anyone with an ounce of intelligence.