Master Call Connections, LLC (represented by Mikhail Lezhnev, New York, USA has been found guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking on the domain name Mastercall.com.
The one member UDRP panel of David J. Steele found the domain name that was registered 23 years ago back on April 24th, 1995 which was 13 years before the Complainant filed a trademark which alleged a first in use date of January 1, 2000 which was still 5 years after the domain name was registered. (The trademark registration for the mark MASTERCALL was applied for on September 3, 2008 and claims a first use in commerce of January 1, 2000.)
Complainant first contacted Respondent and asked about purchasing the domain name in 2007.
The Parties exchanged offers/counteroffers but were unable to reach an agreement (the Complainant offering to buy the domain name for $40,000; Respondent offering to sell it for $100,000 and several other terms that permitted Respondent to continue using the domain name for several email addresses and webpages).
In 2013, the Parties again engaged in negotiations over the possible sale of the domain name. These negotiations included multiple emails, and at least one telephone conversation, between the Parties, and lasted until February, 2014. Like the 2007 effort, the Parties did not reach an agreement to sell the domain name (the Complainant offering to buy the domain name for $2,500; the Respondent offering to sell it for $15,000 and several other terms that permitted Respondent to continue using the domain name for several email addresses).
“The evidence shows that Complainant was aware Respondent was using the domain name in connection with Respondent’s consulting business. Specifically, the evidence includes multiple emails during the 2007 and 2013/2014 negotiations that made clear to Complainant that Respondent was using the domain name in connection with its ongoing consulting business, and that Respondent desired to continue using certain emails on the domain name even if a sale to Complainant were consummated. Further, Complainant’s Exhibit 4 confirms what Complainant already knew from its multiple contacts with Respondent during these negotiations that Respondent was using the domain name in connection with its bona fide offering of its consulting services.
“Complainant conveniently ignored this information when preparing its Complaint and instead, made misstatements to the Panel including, “[t]he website [available at mastercall.com] is inactive, lacks content, and appears to have no legitimate purpose” despite its knowledge of, and plain evidence to the contrary.
“Similarly, Complainant explained to the Panel that “Respondent refused [Complainant’s $5,000 offer] and demanded $15,000 without providing any legitimate reason for [Respondent’s] retention of the domain name.” The emails exchanged between the Parties, which are attached as exhibits to Respondent’s Reply, make clear that during numerous good-faith negotiations between the Parties, Respondent was making a business decision regarding selling its domain name. Respondent further explained, generally, that it would have been expensive and time consuming to change its domain name. Respondent explained in one email:
“We have further assessed the impact in selling our domain name. We have been in business since 1993 and much of our business through referrals, many of whom find us via the internet. We have investment in printed materials such as business cards, stationary as well as yard signs. In addition, we have to get the word out to our real estate agent base and they will have to update their materials that they provide to their sellers. In short, it will not be an easy transition.”
Given the facts of this case, Respondent need not have provided any reason for not selling the subject domain name. But here, Respondent did provide its reasons yet, Complainant failed to accurately convey that fact to the Panel. Complainant likely chose to inaccurately convey that fact to the Panel to bolster its case. Complainant omitted these important facts from its Complaint, notwithstanding its certification that “the information contained in [the Complaint] is to the best of Complainant’s knowledge complete and accurate. (emphasis added).
Respondent has shown knowledge on the part of Complainant of Respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the subject domain name. Further Complainant’s misstatements and omissions of material facts evidence that Complainant is merely using “the Policy as a tool to simply wrest the disputed domain name in spite of its knowledge that the Complainant was not entitled to that name and hence had no colorable claim under the Policy”).
The Panel finds that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.
Michael-that’s all well and good but so what? There is a zero penalty policy for reverse name hijacking. Until that changes why wouldn’t companies take a shot? There’s no downside risk.
John
Well there is a working group at ICANN that is going to be engaged in UDRP reform and last I looked they were taking volunteers so feel free.
But remember if there are monetary penalties for RDNH there may well be monetary penalties against domain holders that lose UDRP’s and about 85-90% of all UDRP’s are lost.
Domain holders lose their domains when they lose UDRP. That is the actual loss. What do the hijackers lose when they lose UDRP? Nothing. That’s unfair IMHO.
This is more so when domain holders lose UDRP by unreasonable/ignorant/brutal decisions.
Good point
“85-90% of all UDRP’s are lost.”
MHB, where is that stat?
The domain is so unappealing that it seems crazy for them to not take $40,000 for it. I wouldn’t even pay reg fee for it if it was available, and I think it’s junk, including “Master Call” being a junky and unappealing name for a business. It’s also no wonder what appears on its homepage now. Trying to squeeze out $100k for something like that seem incredibly delusional and short-sighted.
“Current estimates show this company has an annual revenue of $10 to 20 million and employs a staff of approximately 50 to 99”
I do not know if this data is true about MasterCall Comm . But, I would think if they did $ 10mil a yr, they should have bought it for $ 15k.
Now, they are out $ 3-5k and have nothing to show for it.
Ross Tsoulied is listed as Pres. Apparently, he is Russian. What is interesting is, there is no info on Google (and Yahoo) about him (and nothing for Tsoulied). Which is unusual for a business person in NYC for 15 yrs.
That I can agree with. $15k under the circumstances means the complainant is also being very delusional and short-sighted.
Solid two word brandable. Registered in many other extensions.
You’re fudging. .net, org, co, me, all either not resolving or suspended. Complainant has the .net. The domain is junk. Two-word “brandable” just means very expensive lottery ticket.
The name is junk because you say so ? Lol
The name is far from junk don’t feed the trolls shame.
No, obviously that’s just my opinion, as yours is yours. But I have well pointed out the flimsy baloney element of yours. Someone conceivably has a use for it, but by itself without the reality of the existence of the complainant who would clearly want it you’d be crazy to reg and renew it year after year hoping for the lottery win on it. That’s also my opinion, and I have certainly dropped better than that. Now HugeDomains gets to keep paying renewal fees on what I’ve dropped, lol.
I agree with Meyer on $15k though (see above). But the domain is still very weak.
Jose
85%-90% of all UDRP filed are granted or dropped with a transfer to the Complainant, historically and that is not in dispute
Google it
What I think you maybe missing is that the domain holder turned down $40K in 2007 and then was willing to sell the domain for $15k in 2013/2014
MHB, no intention in disputing.
i was not aware of that either
@Michael
Your point is the one I found most interesting:
The respondent declining an offer of $40 K in 2007 (Pre Global Meltdown) and countering with $100 K
2008-2014 — offers, counter-offers, declines
2015 – respondent now seeking 15 K, instead of 100 K
There are no “winners” here.
Obviously, the domain “mastercall.com” has great value to the complainant, as it’s the name of the company.
But if no such company existed under this moniker, I’d estimate the value of the domain to be worth somewhere between 2K and 5 K.
Should the respondent have accepted the 40 K offer in 2007? Well, of course, but that’s the risk when negotiating. You win some, you lose some.
And that’s if anyone will even ever buy it at $2k to $5k. So then all it is without that company that wants it is a “lottery ticket” costing ~$8 a year to hold, with a potential payoff of low $xxxx, when a real lottery ticket costs $1 and can enable you to retire.
interestingly, and i did not know this also, the majority of UDRPs go undefended and that pushes the stats up.
three member panels also tend to reject more UDRPs than single panel.
When they make decisions on these UDRPs, do the panel members consider the chain of ownership of said domains?
For example, this domain is 23 years old, so indeed if the current owner is the original owner, there would be no possibility of “bad faith”. However, what if the current owner of MasterCall.com purchased the domain after the company “MASTER CALL” already had a presence, either through Google Search, Social Media, filings (USPTO and /or incorp) and provided advertising links or an offering that conflicted with the Complainant’s product or service offering(s) under the moniker MasterCall. I assume this would be “bad faith”.
Or is the whole process really just a crap shoot – having the right panel, counsel, etc ?
I’ve seen some really crazy UDRP decisions recently in favor of the complainant, involving LLL & NNN domains.
My partners and I launched a very popular app some years ago and offered low 6 figures to the owner of the domain. He wanted high 6 figures, which we declined. We hired several well-known brokers to try to acquire this domain, but without luck. These brokers are well-known. Of course we didn’t file a UDRP, as we knew the owner didn’t register the domain in “bad faith”.
But back to this case: when did the respondent acquire the domain MasterCall.com? That seems to be the crucial information and did the site provide ads or offerings conflicting with the complainant’s mark?
What everyone seems to be missing when talking about not worth the money, lottery ticket, should have taken the money is this…
The respondent was using it for email and the sticking point was the requirement for the respondent to maintain certain email addresses so as to not lose leads.
You can claim what ever you want as far as how the respondent should have taken the money, but if the loss of leads plus the cost of rebranding is close to or exceeds the sale then the sale isn’t worth it.
Why sell for $5k if it brings in $5k/year, why sell at $40k if it brings in $20k/year and you would have to fork out to rebrand (and if at the time it was bringing in more, even less reason)
The sticking point was the email address and select webpages to maintain referals and only the respondent knows the value of those.
If your hypothetical is true, then sure, that would certainly render it “not insane” to reject $40k or $15k, otherwise not. I staunchly defend the right of the registrant to price it any way they want, while at the same time also asserting everything else I said here. So you make a good and valid point, but it’s entirely moot if your hypothetical scenario does not apply.
@janedoe
Well, I’d agree with you if the respondent was still using the site. But based on what the site claims, the site/service was terminated in 2010. I can understand that this may have been a valuable site/email database for leads, especially as the business was real estate listings. But I don’t think it’s a coincidence that the service was terminated in 2010, post Real Estate crash, and especially in the State of Georgia, where real estate prices plummeted post 2008. Probably recovered in certain locales – Atlanta, Augusta, Savannah, Athens by now — but many other cities in GA haven’t reached 2004 valuations.
I don’t blame any of the parties for their negotiating. It’s just a shame they couldn’t resolve this without a UDRP filing. For domain value ONLY, MASTERCALL.com is not worth $15 K on the open market, unless you own the .net or another extension and/or have an app called Master Call — then, sure, pay what you can afford to get the .com, if you have a biz called Mastercall, or if you have funding or solid revenues.
You have to wonder why Master Call Connections, LLC chose attorney Mikhail Lezhnev of New York to represent them.
Because Mikhail Lezhnev:
1) Lost the UDRP case
2) Got his client Master Call Connections, LLC branded as Reverse Domain Name Hijackers
Is he the same as Mikhail E. Lezhnev working for Meltzer Lippe Goldstein & Breitstone LLP ?
According to AVVO.com Mikhail E. Lezhnev
https://www.avvo.com/attorneys/11501-ny-mikhail-lezhnev-4627413.html
has been licensed for 2 years with practice areas: Estate Planning, Tax, Business, Litigation.
Don’t see Intellectual Property, Domain Name Disputes etc. in the list of practice areas.
No big deal losing this case and receiving a RDNH label. It won’t impact this company in any way. If they won this case, they would have taken ownership of an exact match domain.
However, the original domain owner losing this domain name would cost them (real estate group) potentially $40k and/or $2500k (both offers made by complainant).
The money lost initiating a UDRP is now a waste.