Yesterday we reported that Simon Property Group (SPG) sued domain name registrar BestRegistrar along with a few alleged resellers and its principals individually including a Jeff Smith to “recover control of approximately 5,000 Internet domain names rightfully owned by SPG, and to recover damages both compensatory and statutory in nature arising out of: (i) Defendants’ wrongful exercise of control over the 5,000 domain names and (ii) unlawful attempts to exact a “ransom” from SPG for the release of those Domain Names.”
Simon Property Group which operates under the domain name Simon.com, is one of the largest mall developer and operators in the United States.
Today we found out the Jeff S. Smith who is named in the lawsuit as a defendant personally is also the CEO and one of the two shareholders of Commercial Connect LLC which is an applicant for the new gTLD .Shop
Commercial Connect site for .Shop is located at dotShop.com
Commercial Connect also filed and lost 8 formal objections to other new gTLD applicants.
The allegations in the complaint we wrote about yesterday made by SPG against Mr. Smith Personally are pretty serious, including violation of the ACPA, breach of contract, Conversion, which is a fancy way of say theft; Fraud and Misrepresentation; Negligent Misrepresentation; Negligence, and conspiracy/aiding and abetting.
Of course the civil complaint that we wrote about yesterday are just allegations and we will have to see how the case plays out.
I have idea of what effect, if any, this case will have on Commercial Connect LLC application for .Shop, if the court finds in favor of the Plaintiff’s but I guess we will just have to see how that plays out as well.
.SHOP will be one of the few successful new gTLDs
If Donuts could be approved, I don’t know why BestRegistrar wouldn’t be!
Re: gTLD Applications of Demand Media, Inc. and Donuts, Inc.
http://domainincite.com/docs/Ltr-re-gTLD-Applications-2012-07-28-c.pdf
Perhaps you need to look at exactly what “bestregistrar” is being sued for Louise… Their crime, and it is a crime, is directly against a Registrant at their own Registrar. The blatant pattern of flagrant disregard for the law and ICANN policy in this matter is pretty much “in your face” vs. a bunch of UDRP decisions with Demand/Donuts.
Hi, Corehub – Registrar accredited by Rightside! – is the Registrar acting for reseller BestRegistrar. Item $7 on its FAQ should solve the issue Simon has:
It doesn’t say, “as long as you agree to indemnify Corehub,” but that is a reasonable request, imo. In response to Simon’s request,
What claims are Smith, Casdns, and BestRegistrar going to make against Corehub? Those entities already agreed – “greed” being the operative word, here! – INDEMNIFY Corehub, as part of their agreement. Simon is at no risk, as far as this layperson can see! 🙂
Geez Louise. The Stoler letter has long since been discredited as a competitor’s attempt to remove us from competition. That was two years more than 100 gTLDs ago. Donuts passed IE and all the relevant tests; Stoler’s and our competitor’s attempt was seen for what it was.
Okay, I retract it. Congrats on being approved and finally bringing some new gTLDs to the market!
Am I speaking to Donuts rep? The wry observation I commented is frustration at the way domains are marketed, vs burdens of the terms on end users, such as myself. On the Rightside website, it says:
Then the terms stipulate, under part VI, Violations
Do you see the discrepancy with the ease of encouragement to have a business online, the gravity of the terms are left out?
Louise – Appreciate the retraction. The contract provision you cite is not from Donuts but is relatively standard in the industry. You’ll find similar language in your .COM registration agreement.
I get it. I am expressing my wants as a client, or as a prospective client, that would make me a more trusting customer, and that would be, terms more favorable to the clent, with an appeal process clearly outlined if any Tom, Dick, or Harry raises the flag of abuse.
ICANN cut you the slack on your 36 “bad faith” UDPRs – can you cut your customer the slack?
Lousie, to be clear:
1) Donuts does not have, or has had, any UDRPs, “bad faith” or otherwise.
2) We understand abuse of abuse mitigation processes. It exists and is real. We are on the side of costumers who follow the rules.
If a competitor highlghted the UDRP losses of an affiliate to block your application for new gTLDs, then it is fitting you would understand a site could be taken down under flimsy claims of abuse. The issue, to me, is your terms are ironclad there is no recourse for the Registrant . . . Why not publish an appeal process in your terms?
There isn’t one on uniregistry, either. The language has seeped to terms governing traditional gTLDs. Registrars/Registries, and ICANN have totally the upper hand to take away domain names.