In a case that should be VERY troubling for all domain holders the a one member UDRP panel just awarded the domain name Vanity.com to a Vanity Shop of Grand Forks, Inc, a trademark holder, despite the fact that the domain holder already filed a case in Federal Court asking for a declaratory judgement that is was not infringing on the complainant’s trademark.
So lets be clear here.
The UDRP panel could have, and in our opinion should have, not even ruled in this UDRP since the domain holder ALREADY filed a case in federal court. but decided to make a ruling anyway and decided to take the domain away.
Having read the decision the decisive factor seems to be the domain holder offered to sell the domain for $1,000,000.
Also note that the complainant wasn’t the world famous Vanity Magazine, but a small clothing store out of North Dakota which grew into a 200 store chain.
Here are the relevant facts and finding by the one member panel:
“Complainant owns numerous federal trademark registrations for the VANITY mark, issued by the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”)
“Complainant and Respondent’s marks are virtually identical; Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name; Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name; Respondent is using the disputed domain name to direct consumers to its own website offering information, blogs, chat groups, and social media links on beauty, fashion, health, and self topics”
“Respondent is targeting the same consumer group as Complainant with its website”
“It is inconceivable that Respondent was not aware of Complainant when it acquired the disputed domain name; Respondent’s disputed domain name is causing confusion among consumers as to whether or not Respondent’s site is affiliated with Complainant;
Respondent offered to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant for $1,000,000 after Complainant offered to purchase the domain name from Respondent”
“Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks.”
“Respondent recently filed a civil action against Complainant in the United States District Court, Northern District of California for a declaratory judgment of non-infringement with respect to Respondent’s registration and use of the Vanity.com domain name; Respondent’s filing of a civil complaint in District Court takes precedent over this proceeding; Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 1995, over seventeen years ago”
“Respondent owns active and valid federal trademark registrations issued by the USPTO for the VANITY.COM mark (e.g., Reg. No. 3,720,766 registered December 8, 2009
“Respondent’s Vanity.com domain name is composed of a common English word, such that bad faith could not possibly have persisted; Respondent requests the Panel dismiss the Complaint without prejudice.”
“In situations where concurrent court proceedings are pending, as is the situation with respect to the instant Complaint, some panels have chosen to proceed with the arbitration filing. ”
“This administrative proceeding under the Policy concerns only control of the Domain Name, not any of the other remedies at issue in the federal litigation. It is not binding on the court, and it does not preclude the prosecution of any claims, defenses, or counterclaims in the federal litigation”
“The Panel chooses to proceed to a decision.”
“Complainant asserts that it registered the VANITY mark with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 1,780,669 registered July 6, 1993). Complainant submits a printout from the USPTO website , which indicates that the mark is registered and that Complainant is the owner of the registration.”
“Complainant also asserts that its VANITY mark is virtually identical to Respondent’s mark. ”
“Complainant argues that Respondent has never been commonly known by the disputed domain name. ”
“The Panel notes that the WHOIS information identifies the registrant of the vanity.com domain name as “Vanity.com, Inc.”
” The Panel also notes that there is no other evidence on record addressing this issue. Therefore, even though the Panel finds that the WHOIS information appears to indicate that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes that Respondent is not commonly known by the <vanity.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). “
“Complainant also argues that Respondent is not making a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <vanity.com> domain name. ”
“Complainant states that Respondent resolves the <vanity.com> domain name to a commercial website offering information, blogs, chat groups, and social media links on beauty, fashion, health, and self topics. Nonetheless, the Panel finds that Respondent is not engaging in a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the <vanity.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”
“Complainant alleges that Respondent offered to sell the <vanity.com> domain name to Complainant for $1,000,000. ”
“Complainant states that it initially offered to purchase the <vanity.com> domain name for $4,500-$10,000 dollars, based upon an appraisal of the domain name’s worth provided by GoDaddy. ”
“Based upon the offer made by Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(i). “
“Complainant also alleges that Respondent’s disputed domain name is causing confusion among consumers as to whether or not Respondent’s site is affiliated with Complainant.”
“Complainant states that Respondent has attempted to attract Internet users to Respondent’s commercial website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s marks. ”
“The Panel agrees with Complainant’s allegations and statements, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith according to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”
“Complainant position is that it is inconceivable that Respondent was not aware of Complainant when it acquired the disputed domain name.”
” The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the VANITY mark when it registered the disputed domain name, the Panel concludes that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the Vanity.com domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.”
Yikes!
UDRP used to steal the domain because they couldn’t afford it. The panelists and the complainant should be thrown in jail ( I wish).
From Wikipedia:
Panelist Retired Judge Nelson Diaz (born 1948) is a United States lawyer who has been a Philadelphia city solicitor, a judge on the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, and General Counsel to the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). He was mentioned as a possible HUD Secretary in the Obama Administration,[1] before Obama announced that Shaun Donovan was his pick for the position.
Between the lines he applied senior rights – contrary to UDRP AND ACPA
I begin to think this domain business it’s monkey business.
Respondent has a TM for Vanity.com (registered since 2009). These panelists are idiots.
Well in this case its only 1 panelist
Honorable Nelson A. Diaz (ret.),Panelist
Does the .ret mean retired?
This has to be most ludicrous decision ever – I still don’t get how a one person panel can even be considered a panel nor how any person with an iq over 20 thinks one person’s judgement is enough in any udrp.
I won’t go down the list of ridiculousness within this finding but for someone to say “”It is inconceivable that Respondent was not aware of Complainant” … Is insane. I’m willing to bet 99 percent of people reading this never heard of this company before.
What a moron.
Anyone could go to:
http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/CorpSearch.aspx
and do a search for Vanity.com, to verify that it’s the same company that has the Vanity.com trademark. Nelson Diaz was the same judge at NAF in one of the infamous “cut and paste” decisions:
http://www.circleid.com/posts/20100423_naf_copying_pasting_nonsense_into_udrp_decisions/
FINRA allows non-lawyers, indeed members of the public, to become arbitrators.
http://www.finra.org/ArbitrationAndMediation/Arbitrators/BecomeanArbitrator/FINRAArbitrators/index.htm
I’m certain that there are non-lawyers who would do a far better job deciding these cases than some panelists.
The irony is that Mike Rodenbaugh, the respondent’s lawyer, was taking extremist pro-Complainant positions on ICANN working groups.
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/msg00182.html
http://forum.icann.org/lists/gnso-rap-dt/msg00185.html
Perhaps now he’ll understand and admit that those positions were incorrect, and cause real damage to registrants from panelists who are not following the UDRP as written.
Alan
“”I’m willing to bet 99 percent of people reading this never heard of this company before. “”
Your wrong its 99.9999999%
Candidly – for a domain like that I cannot believe they countered at only $1MM
Suffice to say the UDRP process is completely worthless at best or a scam at worst.
Mike
Its worthless unless your able to use it to take another persons assets, in which case I guess its its quite valuable
@ Mike Mann
AMEN !
What is even more ludicrous is the fact that ICANN wants to keep small investors trust by having absolutely NO safeguards ACCEPT UDRPP proceedings to pick the small investors bones. Markets are based on TRUST and if you break investors trust the consequences are devestating! and TRUST issues are ravaging our Secondary Markets Asset Values or lifes blood of the domaining community.
Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger)
WTF, Seriously… WTF
I take heart in the fact that the domain owner will definitely prevail in court. But that UDRP decision is an embarrassment and the panelist should be prohibited from taking on any further cases. The decision is totally illogical.
Terrible decision, should be reversed in court, but seriously, lets stop energy ‘cheering’ other decisions when they are right, since there is absolutely no integrity in this process and it means nothing to any other case.
This is monkeys throwing darts.
* wasting energy
Mike,
In reference to .com”s question does it matter what the court says? I guess the owner now has to file another motion to block the transfer otherwise vanity.com is automatically transferred to the new owner and the respondant is left with nothing but “kudos you are right” if they win the pending legal filing — since they don’t even own the asset anymore -is that right?
Alan
This is getting above my pay grade, I would think the pending court action would stop the transfer and the UDRP decision is really Unnecessary since the case is in court, why the panelist would even rule is questionable and how he came to this decision is even stranger.
Anyway its now 2am in London, passing out is required, but feel to discuss amongst yourselves and we will circle back in the AM
Tortious interference?
As far as whatever influence this decision might weasel into a court proceeding, as Kirikos outlined above, detonating the credibility of that retard arbiter shouldn’t pose any problem.
Go forth and seek damages, grasshopper… but I’d get that emergency petition to enjoin Verisign from effecting the transfer dusted off and filed before tomorrow.
Everyone should have such a motion drafted and ready to go, just in case. I for damn sure do.
Here are the hard facts –
The retired Judge collected his check because he needed it – he took the high road in order to collect his check rather than passing to a federal court – and this guy was runner up for HUD Secreatary under OBama ?
This is the one of the worst UDRP decisions in memory and it proves that one should aways request a three member panel when dealing with a name of that much value.
According to eVanity.com’s ABOUT page, their first “core value” is… wait for it…
INTEGRITY
I guess the meaning of the word has changed a bit, over time.
One of my favorite parts of this is how GoDaddy’s appraisal of the Vanity.com domain name was only $4500-$10,000.
Shows just how worthless appraisals are.
@ MHB said: “world famous Vanity Magazine,” but I think you mean, Vanity Fair. Its website is: VanityFair dot com.
ICANN is currying favor with big business by the UDPR setup, capitalizing on general hate and ignorance directed to domain investors.
If you don’t start complaining against ICANN to the NTIA, you’re not embracing reality. It’s a good time to complain, since ICANN’s future hangs in the balance.
very different layouts:
evanity.com
vs
http://web.archive.org/web/20110512195711/http://vanity.com/
(the newest record at archive.org)
Basically, an asset that is arguably worth north of $1 million was stolen by one person, and the get-away car was driven by the UDRP panelist.
Steal $1 million from the wrong person and who knows what the consequences will be…this is one of the reasons why I conduct business honestly, at all times and with all people. You never know what might push someone over the edge.
David –
“proves that one should aways request a three member panel”
Absolutely – but it also provides near indisputable evidence (coupled with indisputable statistics) that when Complainants pay for the Panel – they are much more likely to get the results they paid for.
This one will be brought up in support of a review process of panels and furthermore, the need for some kind of appeal process.
All I can say about this is WTF.
It is about time someone takes legal action against ICANN itself, the UDRP process, the judges who are being used to steal assets, and anyone else involved in this crooked process.
If this is the best ICANN can do, good luck trusting their judgement when it comes to the new gTLD program.
Brad
“One of my favorite parts of this is how GoDaddy’s appraisal of the Vanity.com domain name was only $4500-$10,000. ”
That part blows my mind.
Can we get a domain blogger to reach out to them and get a statement on that?
I have a very hard time believing they appraised Vanity.com at $4500-$10,000, but who knows. There are some real dumbasses working at registrars, posing as ‘experts’.
I’ve submitted domains to auctions where the ‘domain experts’ on the other end determined the reserve was too high… a reserve that was set at exactly the same as the most recent offer I’d had on the domain, not two weeks prior.
An independent group needs to be created to clean up the UDRP process. ICANN can not be trusted.
If it is going to act like a court, with the ability to take away assets, there needs to be clear rules. The judges need to be properly trained. Precedent needs to be respected.
Otherwise it will always be a kangaroo court.
There also needs to be an appeals or arbitration process in place for ludicrous decisions like this.
Brad
“despite the fact that the domain holder already filed a case in Federal Court asking for a declaratory judgement that is was not infringing on the complainant’s trademark.”
This is another major issue. UDRP is not a real court.
The UDRP process should have differed to the actual court.
Also, why is the UDRP process getting into appraisals or valuations?
Here is the bottom line –
If the domain is generic, you can ask whatever the hell you want for it.
Brad
I’m simply dumbfounded.
I just looked at Diaz’ record and he actually denies a lot more complaints than most people. Not sure if George Kirikos was alluding to this or not, but it’s possible this was just what the National Arbitration Forum intern put together, and Diaz rubber stamped it. (Yes, NAF has interns put together sample information a panelist can use to either approve or deny a complaint.)
The pending court case means the domain won’t be transferred.
By the way, Rodenbaugh is also a panelist with Czech Arbitration Court.
“Something is Rotten in Denmark”
“UDRP system” is reaching Zero credibility & integrity & fairness….and seemingly heading below sea level !!! ……except for a few credible, fair and rightous decisions in recent history by the minority of panelists who actually really care and/or truly do their homework
Disgusting!
What right do they have to say a price is considered bad faith.
So many cases is getting pretty bad like this, hayward and so many others.
Ricks big victory, now this bullshit.
People wonder why the domainer community is shrinking. Well this one of the risks on any domain name. It dosent have to be a top generic. Can be on any name. Also, imo if things like this happen more and more, guess what??? Soon domains will be a liability on all of us and won’t be considered an asset anymore. Far fetched? Possible but give it a few more years and we will could all be thinking this.
Also how many part time domainers can defend a udrp? Imo not many. I went just spent 13,000 dollars the past month on .com domains mainly. Some may laugh at dollar amount and its chump change for the big guns in the domain industry but the more cases we see in things like this, that 13k will eventually vanish as an asset. Again far fetched but the risks of carrying domains for many years in the future is bothersome to me somewhat.
A Passion I love and dedication in domains. All I can say is let’s make our money now and get rid of future liability in 5 years. 10 years?
Strange, these complainants offered me $6,500 and said “for a quick sale” this past weekend for Vanity.net and I turned it down but countered and he hasn’t replied. Does this mean I’m next?
Email to Godaddy has been sent regarding the valuation.
As for everyone who downplayed Rick’ Saveme.com RDNH ruling, this is exactly the case why I said that was a big deal because in UDRP world a case can always go against you.
Brad
There are other UDRP decision where the asking price of the domain seemed to be a factor in taking the domain away and the panel was in fact valuing the domain.
Dave
With this win under their belt you might be next
@ MHB
I understand that, but that is not their place to do that.
Domain value is subjective and a legitimate interest should be determined outside any asking price. If you have a legitimate reason to own an asset, you can price it however you want.
Do you think a UDRP panel would have valued NewYorkApartmentsForSale.com @ $42,000?
UDRP needs to be reformed now. Registrant rights need to be respected.
There is way too much power in the hands of 1-3 people to steal legitimate assets with no appeal process.
Brad
They based their $4k-$10k offer on a Godaddy appraisal? I mean COME ON!!! As if Godaddy knows how to valuate domains..
Brad
I agree with you and have said so much in stories on other UDRP cases where the panel engaged in valuation of domains.
I’m just pointing out this is not the 1st time panels have done this
I think Rick Schwartz has the right idea – shaming people involved in trying to steal legitimate assets might be far more of a deterrent than any financial penalty.
I don’t care if this is ICANN, the complainant, the panelist(s), etc.
There has to be accountability for awful decisions like this.
Brad
This is getting way out of hand – it’s at the point where investing in generic domains of value now is actually dangerous. This domain was regged back in 1995, but a purchase and transfer now would make it a “new” domain (not that age has helped in this decision). Why would I spend say, $50K on a generic name today that someone could come after with a UDRP. After decisions like this our portfolios literally fall in value.
The UDRP process needs to be reformed – at the very least 3 member panels and the use of precedent. I don’t know enough about the legal system to run a group like this, but can we form a group to actually put pressure on ICANN to remove the ridiculous decisions? There’ll always be a grey area where complainant and respondent have things going for them and the decision could go either way, but there are far too many decisions which appear to we domainers as attempts at outright theft – and they sometimes work.
I don’t know how many names the commentors on this page own, but together we should have some clout to get the process made fairer.
@ Neil Armstrong
“I don’t know how many names the commentors on this page own, but together we should have some clout to get the process made fairer.”
As far as I am concerned this should be a cause that people other than just domain investors should care about – starting with registries, registrars, auction venues, etc..
Who do you think GoDaddy, NJ, SnapNames, etc. sell domains to?
It is not end users bidding on auctions, it is investors.
If the investor market is hurt it will directly impact the bottom line of registries, registrars, auction venues, etc.
Not to mention at the foundation of everything is a fundamental fairness issue.
The registrant registered this domain in 1995, had a TM for “Vanity.com”, and the term itself is generic outside any of that.
Some company pays $1500 and with the awful ruling of one person, (dis)Honorable Nelson A. Diaz, stole a potential million dollar asset.
Brad
There’s only one way to describe this and it’s theft through the UDRP system. He has every right to sell his generic dictionary word domain name for however much he wants. I hope for the owner’s sake that he has a way to dispute this.
@Brad,Aussie “If you have a legitimate reason to own an asset, you can price it however you want.”
Not sure. Domains were created for a reason and it wasn’t to benefit speculators. One should probably not begrudge speculation as long as pricing is fair, but an asking price that is only likely to be met by eg. a buyer defending goodwill may be another matter.
The cost of replacing a good being sold with one of similar quality normally guides price, but the domain market gets away with ignoring this.
Having said this, the vanity seller could feel unlucky for having been singled out, his quote was only 2*Estibot.
ICANN had a comment period last year on whether UDRP should be reviewed:
http://forum.icann.org/lists/prelim-report-udrp/
If everyone who commented on this blog post had submitted comments, perhaps it might have made a difference. I submitted my own comments, but obviously was outnumbered, when you have the summary being:
“That being said, the majority of contributors acknowledged that overall, the UDRP has worked well as an effective mechanism against cyber-squatting, provides stability for and generally meets the needs of the community, and provides a cost-effective alternative to litigation.”
@ Required
“Not sure. Domains were created for a reason and it wasn’t to benefit speculators. One should probably not begrudge speculation as long as pricing is fair, but an asking price that is only likely to be met by eg. a buyer defending goodwill may be another matter.”
The cost of replacing a good being sold with one of similar quality normally guides price, but the domain market gets away with ignoring this.”
Almost anything in the world has speculation- land, homes, art, collectibles, etc. The entire stock market is based on speculation.
Domains are similar to other assets that are one of a kind where pricing is subjective.
Artwork is one of a kind and the value is determined by the buyer and seller. What is worth $100 to one person could be worth $1M to another, much like domain names.
Brad
does the .ret may mean retired is some places. Here it just means RETARTED.
let me guess the reverse hijackers dont even own vanityclothing.com which i would argue they have more right to than vanity.com
Here we go again! (1) How can we (domainers) insist on a ‘jury’ for our cases? Why? He who pays the piper calls the tune, so a one-man panel might just be ‘tempted’ by the devil. Bribery & corruption are still alive and well, thank you! (2) All in all, there’s no cause for alarm. This strange ‘judgement’ will definitely be set aside in the court of law, soon, very soon. UDRP my foot!
This is by far the worst UDRP decision I’ve seen.
The decision is so thoroughly flawed that it is hard to point out any one flaw, since every aspect of it is flawed.
Reading the decisions feel like stepping into an alternate universe where everything has an opposite meaning.
The respondent has a trademark with a date of first use going back 13 years, therefore he has no rights in the domain.
The respondent has a website “offering information, blogs, chat groups, and social media links on beauty, fashion, health, and self topics. ” therefore the respondent is not making a legitimate use of the domain.
The respondent responded to an offer to purchase the domain therefore the domain was registered 17 years earlier in a bad faith attempt to target the company that made the purchase offer.
To those, like Neil, who say that the UDRP process needs to be reformed and that we need to act as a group to put pressure on ICANN, such a group already exists. It is the Internet Commerce Association (http://www.InternetCommerce.org).
Mike Berkens is a member, as demonstrated by the blue Silver Member badge at the bottom of this blog. I am a member. Many other domain owners are members or supporters, including Frank Schilling, Kevin Ham, as well as many domain owners with much smaller portfolios who care about protecting our industry.
We are a small group, with limited resources, which we combine to pay for an experienced lobbyist, Phil Corwin, to keep an eye on ICANN, engage in the policy making process, and put pressure on them when needed to protect against bad policies.
The ICA has kept our membership to a small core of committed members to keep down on overhead since we don’t have an executive director. But we are reaching out now to greatly expand our membership.
The issues facing our industry can’t be addressed with a small group, we all need to collectively work together to fight for the future of our industry and our livelihoods. We are so small we don’t have anyone to do member outreach or fundraising. All our resources go into working to protect domain owners rights through ICANN, Capital Hill and the courts.
So if you care about these issues, I hope that you will learn more about the ICA, reach out to us, visit the internetcommerce.org website and join the ICA so that we can all work together to protect our investments in domains.
We need to grow, and we need you to join, so that we have the resources to do more to protect our rights.
Every domain we own comes with a UDRP or similar provision built into the registration agreement that says that our assets can be taken from us just as Vanity.com was taken.
UDRP reform is one of the ICA’s top priorities.
Our goals include:
1. Ending Forum Shopping. Since the Complainant picks the forum, the forums compete with each other to be as pro-Complainant as possible. It is one reason why panels are stacked with active pro-trademark attorneys, but not a single domainer attorney is accredited.
2. Ending the use of active trademark attorneys as panelists. It is impossible to maintain the appearance of an unbiased forum when attorneys are arguing cases one day on behalf of trademark owners that domains should be taken away from the current domain owners, and then appearing as panelists on very similar cases deciding whether the trademark owner or the current domain owner gets to keep the domain.
3. Putting real teeth into a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking so that a substantial penalty is involved and requiring panelists to make an RDNH finding when certain conditions are met, to cut down on the number of abusive complaints.
There is a long list of other reforms that are needed, but the above 3 would be a great start.
This is already a long post, but if you want to read more I’ve blogged about many of these issues.
Why UDRP reform is needed:
http://directnavigation.com/2010/01/udrp-a-guest-post-every-domainer-must-read/
The problem of active TM lawyers appearing as panelists:
http://www.domainarts.com/2011/10/21/my-personal-trainer-registers-sofitdc-com-receives-cd-from-sofitel-sent-by-a-wipo-panelist/
Why RDNH needs to be a real penalty:
http://www.domainarts.com/2012/06/18/why-reverse-domain-name-hijacking-needs-to-be-a-real-penalty-and-the-most-comprehensive-list-of-rdnh-cases/
I hope you don’t mind the shameless plug, but it is for a good cause. There is a real need for collective action to protect our industry, the ICA is a group that is doing just that, and we need to publicize that fact more and we need more of you to join.
@Brad
The price of one Van Gogh influences the next, but domain seller can ignore similar sales safe in the knowledge that dada or dede is of little use to the business that has already called itself dudu.
Given their exceptionally strong hand, domain sellers cannot be relied upon to set appropriate prices. Better to rely on an auction, or require seller to accept an offer that would allow domain to be comfortably replaced with one of similar quality.
In this case:
UDRP = ” Unscrupulous Domain Ruling Panel”
Hello Michael, and guest commentators!
First off just let me say, Belly up to the bar boys have another ! As the foundation of our industry is being burned to the F…ing ground !
We all need to be aware that money velocity drives Markets. Our Market is no different !!
Great timing on an issue which needs front and center attention !
With all due respect:
All of this will mean nothing , if UDRPs and the uncertainty and ease with which Felons can try to steal Virtual Business Fondations from their rightful owners is not Checked.
Everything we speak of is tied to the secondary markets Valuations , the cash cow engines that supply the catalyst for our Industry.
The cuurent situation of uncertainty severely impacts and suppresses Secondary Market Valuations!
Uncertainty in Stock Markets cause Bear Narkets. I think you know the far reaching implications here.
Time for our Industry leaders to stop being complacent on this issue, don’t you all think?
How many times does the canary need to show up D.O.A ? Your assets depend on this.
Gratefully, Jeff Schneider (Contact Group) (Metal Tiger
Very disheartening to know that a generic domain one word domain registered in late 90’s, which undoubtedly has been turned down for many offers probably 6 figures, could be LITERALLY stolen by a company that TM about eight years after. I’m sure other Vanity companies are kicking themselves for not trying this and beyond it I am certain that many now will. The one panel didnt seem to be impartial and didn’t base on facts that were any sense to law.
“UDRP IT!” Better buy that name its available- the term that will be common as “GOOGLE IT”. Wouldnt mind seeing UDRPIT.com served with a udrp. Fact is anyone can take a roll of the dice but we should, like any other place, write in and show your disbelief and distrust in the system that is current. Send the message to them. BS. If you want to roll the dice, go to Vegas not UDRP!
Yes this should be appealed. I cant even believe that there was ruling when a court case ruling hasnt come out. Whats worse is this can be used for future case history.
So if you are wanting to stand together DO SO, dont suggest it, DO IT, and send in your displeasing comments directly or organize to do so. If you let it slip by one can think it can be continued and that no one is watching.
Price being bad faith on a generic name bad faith. I cant even imagine any points on how they got this ruling. A man landing blow after blow in the ring vs. someone who lands one or two loses to a three person panel of judges still can be an huge upset but one person in a large corporate case is shady at best.
There is something fundamentally wrong with the UDRP process the way it is now.
Even when the respondent (usually the domainer) is clearly at fault and has infringed on a trademark, the domain is given to one entity who has brought the complaint regardless of how many other people might have trademarks for the same keyword or phrase.
They should put the domain on auction and notify everyone that has an interest in it, this way people won’t be able to abuse the UDRP process for hijacking domains, because there is no guaranty that it will go to them even if the respondent is at fault.
Also it is still not clear after all this UDRP cases that we have seen in the past whether domainers have the right to monetize their domains (through parking or other means) or put it for sale, or just keep it unused as an investment as long as they are not directly or intentionally infringing on anyone’s trademark.
–
Prior to this past week when they made the offer on my Vanity.net domain I had never heard of them.
I did do a little research on them this week and it looks like they go by eVanity.com for their online sales and their not small accordisayings report saying their yearly revenue is over $100 million per year (which is a little difficult for me to believe) have over 1000 employees and are opening brick n morter stores in malls and might have partnered with cotton inc.
Rick Weinstein and COO Scott Roller may be the head honchos with Rick being the CEO.
The Godaddy evaluation for vanity is definitely BS.
Required wrote:
“The price of one Van Gogh influences the next”
====
So, if the average sale price of a Van Gogh is $40 million, does that mean I can’t price mine at $20 billion? I sure can. And I can price my $800,000 house at $2 million if I want to, as well. (Zillow.com has high “Make Me Move” prices that do just this.)
No one has the right to say what something is worth, (or simply TAKE it), if the seller doesn’t want to sell it at their price.
@Grim: Oh that crazy idea of property rights again….
Can someone please show me the disticntion between the vanity dot com case and this one:
NAF: Claim Number: FA0503000433802
The case in which Rick and Howard UNSUCCESSFULLY tried to REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACK the domain name
VOYUER.COM
“The Panel is most disturbed by Complainant’s additional submission. The Schwartz declaration is unsupported by any evidence. The Schwartz Declaration contradicts the very trademark application on which Complainant basis its request for relief. And most importantly, Complainant’s analysis of the various domain name decisions contained in its supplemental pleading is, as Respondent points out, confusingly similar. For example, Complainant states that Evans and Southerland v. Real Image, FA 96112 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 18, 2001) was not a case in which the supplemental registration was sufficient. In fact, the panel in Evans & Sutherland found that the evidence demonstrated common law rights in the mark. Common law rights can only arise when a secondary meaning has attached. Complainant mischaracterizes the decision in The Cold War Museum v. Nicolas Jampol, FA96594 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 8, 2001). There, strong evidence had been presented of the acquisition of a secondary meaning by a mark that might otherwise be characterized as merely a generic “name.”
I hope that when Rick POSTERIZES these guys that he leaves room on the wall for a giant sized self portrait because when the shoe fits…
Once again Rick shows his true colors with words and actions that are inconsistance with one another
SHAME SHAME
You can price your $800k house at $2m but it will rarely sell, and nor does it matter because whoever might have bought it at $800k will probably find an alternative that meets their needs just as well.
But an $800 domain can easily sell for $2k or even $20k if the buyer eg. already has a business that exactly matches the .com.
Owner of a .com domain holds a pretty good monopoly, for now at least. A business can get the .net, add a hyphen or whatever, but may feel it reflects poorly on their credibility if the exact match .com resolves to a parking page. When there are monopolies, market intervention becomes more justified.
Required, if they think adding a hyphen or getting the .net (or whatever) extension of a name reflects poorly on their credibility, that’s too bad, for them. Maybe they should look for another name.
“Market intervention” in this case isn’t justified, just because life doesn’t seem fair, at times.
@Neil Armstrong
“Oh that crazy idea of property rights again….”
That’s right, Neil. Like these UDRP rulings aren’t any less crazy.
Brad Mugford –
“shaming people involved in trying to steal legitimate assets might be far more of a deterrent”
Maybe it is finally the time to update my 10+ year old antiquated rhetoric on AntiAmericans.com and UglyAmericans.com 🙂
@ Neil Armstrong
Do you possibly think that Google.com thinks????? they have De-facto property rughts? This needs to be clarified by ICANN and not just for Domainers but all “Virtual Business Foundation Owners !
Michael please weigh in on this, I am not a Lawyer.
“Maybe it is finally the time to update my 10+ year old antiquated rhetoric on AntiAmericans.com and UglyAmericans.com ”
maybe its finally time you adjusted your domain name registration patterns. I mean after losing 12 domain names by way of the udrp, losing court cases and spending 100s of thousands in legal fees (for yourself and others ) and having to pay damages subject to the ACCPA which as I am sure you can recall are set at 100K per incident (you wrote some checks no?) one would think you might have seen the error in your ways. But, change comes slowly I guess, if at all. As you may know insanity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different outcome.
I suppose your intimate knowledge and experience in this area make you somewhat of an expert however the example you’ve set is probably best used as one NOT to follow as opposed to emulating.
Your history unfortunately makes you part of the problem and the stuff that tm holders are trying now arose partly in response to the bullshit shannanigans of morons like you. Whatever you have to say in response to this is meaningless unfortunately.
Oh sure, I saw your woe is me gripe site and read your sory tale of how the good ole boys gamed you. LOL. Rick may follow your lead and put up a site like the one you lament on but that site wont change history either and anyone interested in finding the truth will have no problem finding it. Unfortunately the truth is you are a SERIAL CYBERSQUATTER BRIAN WICK
Every UDRP case is different, even if it appears to be similar, e.g. Vanity & SaveMe. I believe I provided enough information back when Mike first posted about the Vanity case, why this web site is not truly developed. Offering it to the tm holders for a million was the cherry on the pie. There are ways to achieve a sale and there are ways to blow it up. The UDRP panels often provide a subjective skew of the law, that cannot predict the outcome based on prior cases. It all comes down to how good your lawyer is. Statistically speaking, a 3-member panel more often decides for the Respondent than the Complainant in non-typosquatting cases.
Where do I puke, this lone member is on WATCH, time to SEND THE DIRTY ARMY after him… UDRP panel man you are on notice.
“Where do I puke, this lone member is on WATCH, time to SEND THE DIRTY ARMY after him… UDRP panel man you are on notice.”
Real name no good for this one?
What you said there is exactly the kind of garbage that makes domainers look like a group of mouth breathing idiots. This industry has always had a reputation problem, but 90% of it is well earned by the actions of it’s ‘more visible representatives’. When outsiders look in on blogs like this, they read these kinds of comments, they see people like you confirming the stereotype, it harms everyone.
This is why domaining always has a problem and always will.
Because it attracts the lowest caliber people for one reason, right next to higher caliber people for entirely different reasons. Sadly, any entity- be it a person, an individual business or even an entire industry- will always be defined by its lowest point.
In domaining, our lowest point is below the slime in a butchers dumpster.
This is the straw that broke the camels back as far as I’m concerned as a domainer and as a businessman.. Lawyer UP..!!
domainworth.com, which is MUCH more accurate that estibot, values vanity.com at a range between $1.1 million to $11.7 million. Talk about grand theft.
@Limp Wick
So you agree with the opinion to transfer Vanity.com ? – clearly I would keep your name “Limp Wick” hidden unlike myself who has nothing to hide – took my 6-year old 15 minutes to dig up all that “research” you uncovered that no one ever has seen loser.
FYI – http://www.ConstitutionalLawyer.com – as antiquated as it is as well – might offer a bit more reasoning as to why the Complainant went after the .COM rather than simply reserving a one of countless NON.COMs.
The funniest part of the ruling is the new owner used a GoDaddy appraisal to make a previous offer at $6-10K. LOL. Wow! If GoDaddy appraised the domain right (6-figures), the clothing chain would never have gone after the domain.
In my opinion, the poor appraisal on a generic name as valuable as Vanity dot com is enough to kill the custom appraisal system in the domain industry. Why order a custom appraisal that claims a super generic is worth $6-10K.
IMHO, that is why the clothing store took a shot at the domain. What do they have to lose? The owner did not put up a fight like the two previous elite domainers who won their UDRP cases. Live and learn.
The funniest part about blog comments are the people who habitually post under ‘other names’.
The scariest part is, how anyone other than Berkens could possibly know…
GoDaddy’s “Instant Appraisal,” (which can be found on the AUCTIONS pull-down menu), gives an even lower value. I just did one, and it valued Vanity.com at $802-$1,490.
Out of curiosity, I valued one of my websites that gets over 500K visitors per month, and it valued it at $172-$517.
Appraisals are a joke.
@Anon
Not sure if you’re referring to an earlier reference I made about GoDaddy’s appraisal, that is similar to what Overpriced wrote above, but I can assure you that Overpriced is someone else. (And Berkens would be able to verify that.)
@Anon,
Who cares who is who.
@Grim,
Why does it matter?
@The rest
The domain industry created this UDRP problem with asking insane prices.
The main point is that any entity who is rejected in a domain deal should be exempt from filing a UDRP against the domain holder. Their motivation is to get what they can’t acquire the ethical way.
I’m not sure why the $1 million price would matter. VanityShops AKA eVanity decided to put a dictionary word in their company name “vanity” but it doesn’t give them the right to strong arm the owner for the single dictionary word domain vanity.
If the current owner wants no less than $1 million, who are you or anybody else to say it’s not right? Maybe it was purchased as a piece of their retirement plan, so what!
If a canned peanut company trademarks the word “heaters” wink wink “hint hint” does that mean they can go after heaters.com in a udrp and gain control of it if the current owner asks $1 million + ? The way it currently looks, yes they could.
This is like a bad dream for current domain owners and a gold mine for complainants. Surely it will be turned over in Federal court but it’s a shame they have to spend their time and money trying to re-claim their property and then there’s the mental anguish n stress levels that must be through the roof worrying.
Developing the website (i.e. Vanity) the right way and or parking it to serve up cosmetic surgery advertisers would have kept this domain out of the hands of a small clothing chain. They are bitter because the owner rejected their 4.5-10K offer. Same reason SaveMe.com got involved in a UDRP case. Coupon owners got rejected for $50K. Knew they would never get a fair deal.
There is an obvious trend with end-users stealing domains to avoid paying a bundle (IMO). They won’t waste their time taking lower tier domains. However, the end-users will keep an eye on DNS, MWD, and DM to pick and choose.
The only thing is these domain holders have money to fight cases.
“This is like a bad dream for current domain owners and a gold mine for complainants.”
Only a bad dream for people who lack the money to fight cases and those who own the top domains. Doubt any end-user will go after mediocre domain names or developed websites operating as online companies.
“let me guess the reverse hijackers dont even own vanityclothing.com which i would argue they have more right to than vanity.com”
That is generic too, and owned or pointed at a parking page – by the 7mile.com guy.
The plot thickens. It appears the owners of Vanity.com have now sued in an Arizona court (they had already sued in a California court, if you read the UDRP decision).
http://dockets.justia.com/docket/arizona/azdce/2:2012cv01446/712564/
Perhaps the Vanity Shop folks had specified the jurisdiction of the registrar (GoDaddy) as the “mutual jurisdiction” in the UDRP.
love it!!
jason, bona vee and nat et al: you are all correct. Nelson Diaz was the one panel National Arbitration Forum (NAF) panelist for this decision. Diaz is a crook… literally. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Arbitration_Forum
regarding the corrupt NAF and Minnesota Law Suit. Nelson Diaz corrupt decision in the AirFX case was reversed by the Federal Courts as will happen in Vanity. The NAF needs to be barred from UDRP!!!