Fees Involved

[nicpal]

If two parties cannot come to an agreement over the transferring of a domain, what are the minimum fees (ballpark) involved in filing a domain dispute?

Thanks!

 

[draqon]

well, your post is a bit vague.

do you mean that party A is selling a domain to party B, and is now refusing to transfer the domain?

or does party A think party B is infringing on their trademark?

These factors determine what kind of litigation you would persue. But most domain disputes occur via WIPO UDRP, which has a basic fee of $2,000 ( I believe).

 

[nicpal]

Sorry about that, what I meant is that say I am the seller and approached by a party that believes they have the right to my domain (either legally or professionally). The party and I cannot come to an agreement upon transferring this domain over to them. So they decide to file a dispute against me and the fees would be....

I am trying to get a hypothetical idea here of what to ask for a valuable domain when approached with such a scenario. This has happened to me a few times and I have settled with the other party; however in the future I want to make sure that I am not "underselling" my domain. Obviously if the other party is willing to pay $2000 to file a dispute you would think that they would settle for any amount below that to acquire the domain unless they thought they could acuire some of the dispute fee amount back in damages.

 

[draqon]

Well, my answer remains that it will cost them about $2000. Plus they will have to pay their lawyer to write up the UDRP, which I suspect takes 2-5 hours to write.

Not *all* parties would be willing to settle for a price lower than $2,000 just to avoid having to pay that fee to initiate UDRP proceedings. Some companies like to demonstrate that they dont deal with cybersquatters, so they will refuse to pay a single penny, and just go ahead and file the paperwork.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

NAF fee schedule:

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/UDRP/fees.asp

As Draqon notes, there are reasons why many, and I do mean MANY, complainants would rather pay their attorney several thousand dollars than pay a domain registrant $500. For as much ego and bravado as is often demonstrated here by folks who will encourage you to fight to your last dollar, I promise you that there is as much ego and bravado on the other side.

Some people take the attitude that if you pay one guy $500, then next week you'll have 20 more - it's like feeding seagulls. Still other complainants want to develop some evidence of a trademark, and a UDRP decision is a cheap way to do that.

Sometimes it is attorney driven - some attorneys think that they attract prospective clients on the basis of some number or percentage of cases they've won, and they loudly trumpet every victory, regardless of how trivial. Hence, they persuade their clients to fight instead of reaching reasonable settlements.

Expecting the other side to be rational is not a reliable guide to managing the unavoidable legal disputes that come up in the conduct of any business.

 

[Ari GoldbergerAri Goldberger is verified member.]

I agree with John's analysis but would like to add a couple points. I'ver run into the same problem with many complainants. On more than one occasion, my clients have offered to transfer the domain name for free after a complaint has been filed, and the complainant refuses, preferring to score a victory and nail the domain owner with an embarrassing loss. At the same time, a trademark holder might like the idea of getting a win so that it can stand as a warning to other domainers who might grab domains with their marks.

Finally, I also recommend that when approached with a legitimate challenge towards a domain you have that you consider simply doing the right thing. Sometimes it's not worth the headaches in fighting a losing battle. In the long run you may be better off giving in on the weak cases to protect your overall portfolio.

 

[HOWARD]

And I agree with Ari. There are complainants and their attorneys who are reasonable, but just as often, they are stubborn and intractable. We, as defense attorneys, get to know which complainants attorneys are reasonable and which ones refuse to negotiate a reasonable settlement. Thus, we can take that into account in advising our clients whether or not to fight the claim.

 

[nicpal]

Thanks for all of the responses thus far.

The most incident of this has just occurred to me when I received an email regarding a non-trademarked domain. The attorney representing the client told me "via email" that I had 48 hours to respond in writing to this complaint and that I can either email him or call him with regards to my intentions. I politely emailed him back and got no response when I said that I would gladly transfer the domain over to his client if he would agree to pay all fees incurred by me via registration. The following day, I received a certified letter receipt in my mailbox from the company which I assume is a written copy of the letter he drafted to me via email (as I have not been able to pick it up yet). It seems that this may be a case of the "stubborn and intractable" attorney who may be out just to prove a point. I certainly hope this is not the case, because I will have no choice but to respond in a similar manner.

 

[LewR]

Excellent thread ... A powerhouse of information and professional advice.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

The pivot point is around $2000. If a complainant wants to file a UDRP, it will cost at least that, and there is always uncertainty in the process.

However, as it has been pointed out, complainants do not always think rationally, and very often will pay their lawyers whatever it takes rather than pay a domain owner a grand for a quick transfer.

The richer the organization, the less incentive to avoid legal costs. In-house counsel is a fixed cost.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

"The richer the organization, the less incentive to avoid legal costs"

Tough call. With small businesses, you get rabidly emotionally-motivated folks more often than folks who have their eye on the department budget. In-house counsel may be a fixed cost, but the fees are still controllable and I have seen few UDRP complaints prepared and filed in-house (your mileage may vary, and my experience may not be representative of the norm).

 

[Cash Is King]

Originally posted by jberryhill
"The richer the organization, the less incentive to avoid legal costs"

Tough call. With small businesses, you get rabidly emotionally-motivated folks more often than folks who have their eye on the department budget. In-house counsel may be a fixed cost, but the fees are still controllable and I have seen few UDRP complaints prepared and filed in-house (your mileage may vary, and my experience may not be representative of the norm).

With my experience on the manufacturing side of business, most in house counsel are hired to be revenue producers for an Organization. Patent / trademark enforcement usually results in some kind of royalty agreement going forward and a lump sum payment for prior usage. This is big business. I wont mention any companies names, but I can tell you some would go under without that royalty income.

 

[Deleted member 4749]

Originally posted by Ari Goldberger
On more than one occasion, my clients have offered to transfer the domain name for free after a complaint has been filed, and the complainant refuses, preferring to score a victory and nail the domain owner with an embarrassing loss.

Ari, what loss can a company run a respondent in this case? If a respondent willing to transfer the domain for free and the complaint doesn't accept it, then what can the complaint do ?
Respondent can fail to submit a response and it will not cost him a penny to ignore all the letters from WIPO.

Since only in exceptional cases complaint can seek a compensation from the respondent for the harm caused by the use of copyrighted domain, I assume this is not the case.

Can you explain what exactly you mean ?

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

"Since only in exceptional cases complaint can seek a compensation from the respondent "

No. Under no circumstances can a UDRP complainant obtain any kind of monetary award. The sole remedy available is transfer of the domain name.

The respondent can, of course, do nothing. However, if the respondent would prefer not to have a published opinion, then it is preferable to seek to terminate the proceeding and transfer the domain name. For example, the respondent may have a good portfolio of generic domain names - some of which might be trademarked terms for an unrelated class of goods or services (e.g. "cheer" is a common word and a trademark for detergent). In such circumstances, if the particular domain name at issue is not worth defending, then it is helpful not to have an opinion published which will be cited by others that the respondent is a cybersquatter, in cases having less merit than the present case.

The other motivator is that parties with questionably valid trademarks sometimes want to obtain a UDRP ruling, so that they can then use that as evidence that someone had recognized the validity of their mark.

 

[Deleted member 4749]

Yes, this is the only harm that the complaint may cause by proceeding with the complain rather than accepting the domain name transfer.
It however doesn't cause any obvious "embarrassing loss". It causes some indirect inconvenience.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

Well, as you may have ascertained from some other threads here, there are those who find a loss to be extremely embarassing.

 

[DaddyHalbucks]

Well, as you may have ascertained from some other threads here, there are those who find a loss to be extremely embarassing.
++++++++++++

The fact is that prior UDRP decisions can be cited against domain owners in future proceedings and lawsuits, regardless of the outcome of the UDRP, to try to "taint" a domain owner as a cybersquatter.

It is beyond an inconvenience and embarassment.

It can become a TAKING and DEFAMATION.

 

[Garry Anderson]

"Cheer" could be used for any purpose - provided the domain holder was not passing off as detergent trademark.

That goes for any word in the dictionary.

Objectively - those individuals that support this trademark overreach are corrupt and without honour.