On October 18th the domain name Switch.net sold on NameJet.com for $3,655.
Two days later on October 20th a UDRP was filed on the domain.
The Complainant is listed only as “Switch”.
Reviewing the US Trademark database I see a trademark on the term Switch by “Switch Lighting & Design” of Ohio and another by “Switch LLC DBA switch LIMITED LIABILITY COMPANY MASSACHUSETTS”
Guess we will have to see who filed the complaint on this very generic term.
As for the owner of the domain, prior to the sale it was owned by an S Gourde of Lyon France. You can do a whois to see whom the current owner who appearently bought the domain name and it appears a UDRP along with.
I checked the Way Back Machine and Screenshots.com to see what the recent use of the domain has been, but it was inclusive.
What we do know its probably a record time from purchase to UDRP filing in what is now a cautionary tale for all.
Classic Namejet. I advised a TM holder to contact them prior to an auction (for a blatantly obvious TM), and they lied to the TM holder and said that there was nothing they could do until the ownership information was updated (read: they wanted to get paid for the auction)
The TM holder bid a few thousand in the auction and when it went for even higher they just filed a dispute a month later. They won easily.
This is the cheap UDRP lottery ticket I mentioned in another thread.
The dispute process was not designed for this.
It is kind of hard to show “bad faith” after 2 days of ownership.
If they wanted the domain, they should have bid at auction.
This term is obviously generic. Ridiculous dispute.
Brad
“Switch” has 900M Google results. For someone to think they have exclusive use over that term is absurd.
There needs to be actual penalties for bringing frivolous disputes like this.
This would get laughed out of a real court, but in a kangaroo court like UDRP you never know.
Brad
@Greg: This is a 100% pure USDA choice generic. Period. How on earth is this “Classic Namejet”? Get a clue.
Regarding the UDRP, the only way it should be considered is if new owner did something truly stupid after they bought it. And maybe they did, but much more likely it’s just a lottery ticket for the complainant.
This is ‘filing in bad faith’ – should result in termination of the filers TM or at least have to pay both parties costs.
“As for the owner of the domain, prior to the sale it was owned by”
When reading this, I assumed the former owner sold it on Namejet.
That is not the case. The domain dropped and caught by Enom.
I wonder if the person/firm filing the UDRP complaint bid on the domain?
I didn’t see any of the 114 bidder names that might have an IP right.
The filing and legal fees will be higher than $ 3,700.
I wonder if it is the owner from (1996 – 2002)?
(6-01)
SwitchNet
Herr Stens Vag 49A
Alvsjo, SE-12530 SE
(They now use switchnet,se/en/ )
(6-03)
Switch.net (UK) Ltd.
72 New Bond Street
London
Company created 7-02
Company dissolved 8-04
(11-03)
S Gourde
44 rue de mare
lyon, Lyon 3445
France
“There needs to be actual penalties for bringing frivolous disputes like this.”
Yeah, like castration
Possibly they were in the auction – and when it reached a certain level – they opted to take the high road and try to take it away
@BrianWick – Wouldn’t that be the “low” road?
“try to take it away”
That is an expensive gamble since it is a generic word.
And, proving ‘bad faith’ would be difficult.
Lets say they spend $ 4-5,000. in filing and legal fees.
If they lose, the money went down the drain.
If they think they can save in legal fees by representing themselves,
they will definitely lose if the new domain owner hires a seasoned
IP lawyer.
If the new owner does not hire an IP lawyer, maybe the complainant
might have an outside chance.
It all depends who is the complainant.
Why suddenly .net? Switch.me is sweet enough? Morons.
I ended up winning the Namejet auction. My name is Dorian Banks and I am in the ISP business. What has transpired since I legitimately won the auction has been nothing short of bizarre.
The day I rec’d registration I was sent a WDRPS complaint. My WHOIS data was/is real and legitimate which is how I answered the complaint.
About a week later I started receiving emails from lawyers offering to represent me in my UDRP complaint. Since I’d never heard of UDRP I thought it was the WDRPS complaint and ignored it for a few days.
Then I receive an email where I am cc’d from WIPO. The email is to a law firm in Switzerland telling them that the WHOIS data they used to file the UDRP complaint has changed and they should update it. Also cc’d is another individual, Phillip Pattersons (phillip.pattersons@gmail.com).
I reply to this email informing them that my WHOIS information is correct and they can take a hike.
A few days after this I’m still getting lawyers contact me regarding an ‘open’ UDRP complaint. So finally I start doing some research and educate myself to what is actually happening (this is only 3 days ago).
At this point I still don’t have the actual complaint as I can only assume it went to Mr. Pattersons and not myself…as I figure he was the interim WHOIS for Enom or Namejet.
WAIT FOR IT…..this is where is gets VERY INTERESTING.
So I start doing a bit of research and figure these Swiss lawyers are representing Switch.ch. I still have no idea who this Pattersons guy is though.
I contact Enom and ask if the rec’d a UDRP complaint on my behalf (yesterday). I email WIPO twice asking for the complaint, still nothing.
I figure that I was never actually named on the complaint as it was filed just prior to my name going on the WHOIS.
This morning I wake up to an email from the Swiss lawyers to WIPO. I am cc’d as is Mr. Pattersons. So now I figure out what has happened.
Clearly someone, Enom, Namejet or Mr. Pattersons (or maybe in conjunction) contact Switch.ch just before or during the auction offering it to them for a large sum of money, which apparently they declined. So either Mr. Pattersons works for whomever controlled the domain OR he was in the auction with me and was attempting to pre-sell the domain.
The legal letter (which I will include link to below) attempts to show that this Mr. Pattersons and I worked together to defraud Switch.ch. They attempt to illustrate this via my email to them stating my WHOIS is correct, which I find kind of confusing.
I am a networking professional and intend to use the domain name a networking company. Here is my public info:
http://www.metrobridge.com/section.asp?catid=167&pageid=451
http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/people/person.asp?personId=13356807&ticker=MEB:CN
Maybe you guys can do some research beyond what I have done and try to determine who Pattersons is and if he is connected with whomever controlled the domain name prior to my winning it?
Dorian
I have contacted Namejet and brought it to their attention
But you bought the domain spending a few thousand dollars for it.
So you really need to get an attorney to defend the UDRP.
You only has a certain number of days to respond.
You should also consider paying extra for a three member panel.
Here is a link to the 4MB PDF file I rec’d this AM from the Swiss lawyers which filled in many blanks as to what in the world was happening:
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/114124/doc.pdf
The strange part about his is I can’t even file a defence as I don’t have the complaint letter.
Here is an excerpt from the Namejet auction:
Bid History Details: 133 bid(s) from 115 bidder(s)COLLAPSE
Bidder Amount Date
dorianb $3,655 Oct. 18, 2011 1:55 PM PT
fronttoback $3,555 Oct. 18, 2011 1:54 PM PT
dorianb $3,500 Oct. 18, 2011 1:54 PM PT
dorianb $3,101 Oct. 18, 2011 1:53 PM PT
fronttoback $3,001 Oct. 18, 2011 1:52 PM PT
dorianb $3,000 Oct. 18, 2011 1:52 PM PT
dorianb $2,601 Oct. 18, 2011 1:52 PM PT
fronttoback $2,501 Oct. 18, 2011 1:52 PM PT
dorianb $2,311 Oct. 18, 2011 1:52 PM PT
latarioni $2,211 Oct. 18, 2011 1:52 PM PT
dorianb $2,111 Oct. 18, 2011 12:50 PM PT
tafson $2,011 Oct. 18, 2011 12:50 PM PT
Dorian,
You seem like a nice enough chap…but you also seem to be in denial.
You have a problem and if you do not retain counsel, the liklihood is that you are going to lose this domain name.
Wish you the best!!1111
Ha! I’ve already contacted two lawyers that were recommend to me.
….and now I find out what has happened:
http://www.dnforum.com/f26/namejet-com-warning-disgusting-behaviour-thread-325509.html
There is no way anyone can legitimately say that the term switch is not generic.
Light Switch, Network Switch, Switch (change), and many other generic meanings.
Now the defendant has to retain counsel, and pay to defend this dispute.
Meanwhile, even if the complainant is found for RDNH, they face no penalty.
This dispute, along with several others like it recently, just illustrate how bogus the UDRP process has become.
Brad
@Dorian
I feel bad for the situation you are in.
Best of luck with the dispute.
Brad
Thanks Brad….sucks to have to waste time and money on this!
I don’t understand lawyer language too much but “if” the new owner has contacted and tried to sell it to Switch.ch (as their letter implies) then they may have you by the balls now.
Risky move
Similar thing happened to me when I bought Scola.com 3-4 years back at Snap (surname, name of baskeetball player, countless other uses) for $7K had another $7500 for 3 panelists and legal fees and still lost it because somehow they felt I was the previous owner who had tried to sell the domain to scola.org apparantly and a bunch of other contrived nonsense.
Wow, that doesn’t sound good Brian! : (
I’m thinking the Phillip dude who tried to sell it it fake, but the address I found for him has this dude at it:
Kedhar Ramanathan
He owns/owned a ton of domains: http://tinyurl.com/3mjndkr
I call it Tuition – otherwise it will just eat you up !!!
As far as the domain switch.net – I am not a non.com’er except in rare circumstances where putting quotes around it in a tech area makes since – like MHB’s “VoiceMail.net” i like and i really like “Switch.net” in that tech reguard.
Any additional money you spend on a lawyer and 3 panelists to sort out the “contrived” confusion will be well worth it – IMO.
Well after reading through that complaint I’m boggled. Has anyone actually told that lawyer the name was in an auction??
In any case they can’t begin to prove bad faith and the complaint should fail on those grounds alone.
Too bad it isn’t a court action I for one would love to get namejet into court and find out just how they handled the complaint and whether or not the original person who contacted the TM holder was one of their employees. After all if you can get more people bidding for the domains they make more $$$$.
It might not be anything to do with namejet.
There are companies who send out emails to people who have similar domains to tell them they can aquire it for them at a price.
I’v had loads of emails like that.
I’ve now told the lawyer about the auction but they have little reason to reply to me. However, the lawyer did reply to me stating she would ask WIPO to get me a copy of the complaint on Monday.
I figure whomever attempted to pre-sell the domain to Switch.ch was either an employee of Enom or someone in the auction who was hoping for a quick sale and then bid on the domain to make a profit. They don’t win the domain, cash comes out of escrow back to the purchaser. It is actually a pretty interesting business model.
So the lawyer is turning out to be pretty reasonable (for a lawyer) and at least keeping communication open.
Unfortunately the UDRP clock is ticking and reviewing the process it kind of seems that the process doesn’t give a sh*t that I’m the new owner and never rec’d the UDRP complaint.
The attorneys I see most often representing the Respondent in UDRP cases are John Berryhill and Ari Goldberger (Esqwire.com).
I think your case will pick up quite a following in the community and outside the community as well – especially with the intuitive generic tech nature of the term “Switch.net”.
It is the Complainant’s job to confuse the Panel with irrelevant facts – I recommend paying the extra $1500 or so and getting 3 panelists.
I am in talks with John now and if his fees are reasonable I will retain him.
Brian, as you can read in the PDF this is exactly what the lawyers have commenced by stating I am somehow linked with the original person who emailed their client attempting to sell a domain they either represented in Enom or had not yet won in auction.
Incidentally, I am now on my third WDRP complaint. My guess is it may be other ‘Switch’ named companies that were contacted in the same format as the one who has filed the UDRP complaint.
Possibly more UDRP complaints are coming?? Craziness.
Dorian, you might need to focus away from NameJet altogether. There is at least one person that a) joins auctions with the basic $69 reserve and b) emails holders of tm’s that might match the domain in order to bid on their behalf. In the process, he calls the other bidders “cybersquatters” in his email. IMO part of your defense should seek to invalidate the UDRP before it goes to WIPO by showing you aren’t the former domain owner. The motion should request all communication alleging otherwise to be disclosed.
More info at http://acro.net/blog/domains/bidding-at-namejet-the-domain-coyotes-den/
Acro….I feel this is exactly what has happened.
Furthermore….I think this is one of the people doing it:
Kedhar Ramanathan of 2704 Bent Creek Court Beavercreek, OH (US) 45431
His WHOIS has been on a ton of domains he no longer own but were all at one time with Enom (therefore Namejet).
He owns/owned a ton of domains: http://tinyurl.com/3mjndkr
Acro might be making a good point with NJ – but I would not isolate NJ – they all are subject to it – in my case Snap 4 years ago – may as well have been Halverez acting as bidder “billy”.
As said before all said about $15K in “tuition” for me.
I do not think there will be one person not pulling for you Dorian.
As much as it’s easy to focus on NameJet as the culprit, it’d be very uncharacteristic of a company to have any involvement of this kind. On the other hand, there are plenty of reasons of others to ‘nuke’ an auction and to speculate freely, even pretending they are looking after a tm holder’s rights.
Crazy enough John Berryhill is staying at a hotel here in Vancouver one block from me! What are the odds of that?! Buying a lottery ticket when leaving the office.
Dorian,
Canucks need to get it done this year otherwise they will just be another Ottawa.
I was in Vancouver 1994 for game 6 when the Rangers took it – ooch.
Now I am an Avalanche fan in Colorado.
I think you will have better fortunes with switch.net !!!
Ha! Thanks Brian! Going to be interesting to see what happens here, no doubt.
Certainly exposes some of the underhanded crap that goes on out there….as well as this demented UDRP process!
@Dorian
Well the Vancouver area has always been a hotbed for domainers. Heck I’m just out in Langley. Let’s get together for coffee sometime.
I’d really like to see the outcome of this situation, all sympathy to you aside. We still do pick up domains in the drops occassionally and I could see this one blowing up in a domain holders face if for no other reason than the clock running out.
Gordon
DropWizard.com
I met with John Berryhill and he listened and provided some advice but in the end was confident that everything is in my favour as I registered the domain in good faith.
WIPO got back to me stating the UDRP was still in “administrative compliance check” and that the 20 days had not begun.
If John Berryhill has assured you something, let me tell you, you are quite safe!
Good luck Dorian, oh and btw, I’m an ex Vancouverite.. 58th Ave & Main street to be precise 😉
Jay
Does anybody know what happened here?