The story goes on to say that the Receiver appointed by the court to watch over the assets of John Zuccarini including the domains that were not renewed and auctioned off, was off to court to somehow stop or undo the sale of those domains which had already been sold and paid for.
Since we started this whole mess off with our blog post of a few weeks ago, we asked NameJet.com for a response to the Receivers claim.
Namejet.com sent the following response to this issue:
“””We have been assured by Network Solutions that the Registrant did not renew the registration services for the domain names prior to their respective expiration dates or after Network Solutions’ renewal grace period. As a result, the domain names were listed on NameJet through Network Solutions’ automated process and in accordance with the terms of the Network Solutions Service agreement. By not renewing the domain name registration services, the Registrants gave up their rights to continued services, and those domains were subsequently auctioned.”””
So like anyone else using Network Solutions, if you don’t renew your domain its going to be auctioned off by NameJet.com unless there are no backorders placed on it, in which case it will just drop.
This applies to everyone, Receivers included.
Now the Receiver has a big problem. Prior to the NameJet.com sale the value of the domains were speculative, however based on the sale, the court might very well order the Receiver to pay back the value of the domains to the judgement holder based off the auction price.
Ouch
In the case of Zuccarini, these domains were in his name, correct? They were not in a controlling entity, such as an LLC. There is a lesson to be learned here.
Acro
If all the domains are held by the same entity not sure there is much of a benefit.
If he had all of his really problematic domains in one corporation and the less problematic ones in another, that might have helped him greatly.
Acro – the domains were in the name of the receiver.
As stated on a number of bumper stickers –
“Crap Happens”
Andrew – ouch. That means they were told to safeguard the assets and they completely tossed them away.
GovermentGrants.com was not paid for due to the pending legal claims against these names so the 53k does not hold up as anything more than a speculative bid. That is not the assigned value of the domain name.
Acro – yep, that was basically their job!
now THATS entertainment!
you domain types are pretty sure of yourselves here it seems, I dunno but I think some one might want to wait to see what the court has to say about all of this, you know?
Right now theres a judge out there who just might get the last word in all of this before its over.
The judge might indeed get the last word, but he appointed an attorney as receiver who had no idea what domains were about and what their value might be. I think the Receiver will have to make good on the values received by Namejet to the court.
but domains are still a good thing… right?
Right
Stewart: “you domain types are pretty sure of yourselves here it seems, I dunno but I think some one might want to wait to see what the court has to say about all of this, you know?
Right now theres a judge out there who just might get the last word in all of this before its over.”
Well, maybe there is a judge out there willing to make an exception to a rule (that more than 100,000,000 registrants per year have to adhere to) just to save the arse of an inept receiver. Maybe you have an inside track to which judges could be….persuaded?
too costly renewal price now he is paying after expiry 😀
“domain types”
Has a ring to it..,
No special treatment for anyone. I don’t think a judge can force a contract to be broken because of the receiver’s incompetence.
Does anyone have any response from the receiver? I’d love to see his case for getting the domains back… I didn’t know any better so please make an exception for me?
Right. Good luck.
This will probably help to establish that domains are property.
Just wait and see. The power of a court in such matters exceeds the rules of registrars.
Before this is over, those names will be back under the control of the court.
Steve M: “Before this is over, those names will be back under the control of the court.”
On what grounds? Mistakes are made every day – it’s not a legal requirment that they are rectified.
If You or I forgot to renew a domain, do you think the courts should intervene to get us our names back? Yeah, right….
Why should it be any different for an ignorant receiver?
@Steve
As an attorney I must respectfully disagree with you. Judges have no power to cancel legal and valid contracts for sale of property and domains are no exception. Ignorance of the property with which he was dealing is no excuse for the Receiver. In fact, the Judge may have egg on his face for appointing a Receiver who didn’t know what he was doing.
James & Howard,
I understand what you’re saying.
The reason for my belief that these names will be taken back by the court is due to the “grounds/legal mechanism” for them being auctioned off to be closely akin to the loss of real estate through foreclosure sales and tax sales; where courts regularly (though admittedly rarely) reverse such sales; taking back the asset and refunding the buyer/s their money.
Indeed, the IRS has 120 days to take real property from a bona-fide buyer after such “you didn’t make your payments” sales.
James–this is most assuredly not the same situation as you or I losing names because we forgot to renew them. These names were under the court’s control. Yours and mine are not.
But hey; we should know soon enough; as the court will likely act quickly if it legally can do so.
james? Under the grounds of I am the judge this is the court, we don’ nee’ no stinkin’ Namejet!
http://search.aol.com/aol/search?query=youtube+sierra+madre&s_it=keyword_rollover
We shall all see where this one lands, my money is on the court.
Stewart: “We shall all see where this one lands, my money is on the court.”
By that I assume you think the receiver will not have to pay for his actions? That Namejet and their customers will be the ones to lose out despite doing everything by the book?
Can you explain why you think that should (or will) be the end result of someone’s ignorance and ineptitude at their role?
Stewart is wishful thinking.
He hopes domainers will be penalized because of his opinion of domainers.
If anyone actually bothered to read the court filing regarding these domain names in question they would see that it says this: (Case No. C-06-80356-SI)
“On December 18, 2006, DSH registered in this Court a judgment issued against
Zuccarini by the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the
“Judgment”). In connection with DSH’s efforts to enforce the Judgment, the Court
issued a preservation and discovery order (the “Preservation Order”) on February 21,
2007. [D.E. No. 9.] Among other things, the Preservation Order stated:
Beginning as of the date this Order is entered and continuing until such
time as this order is modified, superseded or vacated, neither John
Zuccarini, Network Solutions, Joker.com nor any other party with
actual or constructive knowledge of this Order, nor any person or entity
owned or controlled by any such party, shall transfer, cause to be transferred, or otherwise permit, participate in or facilitate the transfer
of any domain name comprising the Domain Name Holdings.”
Network Solutions was specifically named and there is a standing court order in place to not transfer these domains. 😉
@stewart please stfu, you are the most ill-informed commenter on the website. You make a fool of yourself everyday. Talking about “domainer types” condescending people who can buy and sell your ass in two clicks of a finger. And that is what is real. You are a nobody… so silence.
NameJet and Netsol are in the clear. The domain receiver is responsible for the domains. If he cannot handle that responsibility it is his fault. The law does not work backwards, not even a judge is that stupid.
Domain receivers do the dirty work for the scum lawyers who sue for $100k per domain. It is a back-alley business if you ask me. I know someone who was sued for $200k for 2 domains that were worth nothing, but had a TM in them. He lost a few domains worth over $50k and his entire web business.
Don’t cut these guys any slack, they are just trolling the domain biz.
There is also talk that the United States Government may claim rights to the Goverment Grants & Auctions names, etc.
Read:
http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/zuccarini-1.pdf
http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/zuccarini-2.pdf
I am 100% confident these domains will go back in the hands of a court appointed receiver due to the case history and standing legal decrees in place regarding these specific domains.
Had these domains been any other random domain names that expired and were auctioned off there would be nothing the losing party could do but in this case there is recourse I’m afraid.
@Junebug
Beginning as of the date this Order is entered and continuing until such
time as this order is modified, superseded or vacated, neither John
Zuccarini, Network Solutions, Joker.com nor any other party with
actual or constructive knowledge of this Order, nor any person or entity
owned or controlled by any such party, shall transfer, cause to be transferred, or otherwise permit, participate in or facilitate the transfer
of any domain name comprising the Domain Name Holdings.”
The effect of this Order is that by letting the domains drop, not only is the Receiver personally responsible, but so is Netsol, which did not diligently protect those names from dropping by warning the Receiver that they were about to drop and giving him an opportunity to extend their registrations.
Howard
Oh what a tangled web
Add to the equation that not only is Netsol the registrar but they own part of the auction service that the domain was dropped and auctioned through.
Moreover the domain sold for the most money still is showing in pending delete status.
As T.O. says “get your popcorn ready”.
“but so is Netsol, which did not diligently protect those names from dropping by warning the Receiver that they were about to drop and giving him an opportunity to extend their registrations.”
Netsol claims to have sent multiple expiration warnings, and I am inclined to believe them.
It seems then that Netsol’s responsibility revolves around this idea that the domain names were ordered to be controlled by the receiver. The notion of “control” would appear to include the receiver’s decision to renew, or not renew, any of the names. If the receiver had simply decided not to renew certain names, then someone would be here complaining that Netsol had violated the receiver’s “control” by NOT following the normal post-expiration process set forth in its terms.
The names were supposed to be under the control of the receiver. That does not provide Netsol with any discretion in the treatment of names the receiver does not renew, after having received expiration warnings from Netsol.
As far as getting the names back, I don’t see the point. The entire objective of the plaintiff here is to obtain control of the domain names for the purpose of auctioning them off. The names were auctioned off, at a definite auction value. Hence, in contrast to real estate transactions in which sometimes the application of principles of equity will deem a pile of money representing the sale price of the real estate not to be a substitute for the real estate itself, the loss here is not irreparable by monetary damages. In other words, the situation would be different if it was the plaintiff’s ultimate intention to actually use the domain names. In that situation, a monetary remedy would be inadequate.
Here, however, the plaintiff’s intention was to conduct an auction to obtain a sum of money for the domains. That is exactly what NameJet did, which reduces the remedy here to a legal remedy (i.e. the money), and not an equitable remedy (i.e. transfer of the domains). In other words, the quarrel here is about “who got the money for auctioning the domains”, not “who got the domains”.
@Stewart
Looks like you would’ve lost that bet;
“Judge denies request to go after domain names auctioned at NameJet.
Yesterday Judge Susan Illston of U.S. District Court – Northern District of California denied a request for emergency relief on domain names that a court appointed receiver let expire.”
(From DNW)
Better stick to getting paid by the hour – leave the risk/reward stuff to us ‘domainer types’.