Received a C&D 2 1/2 weeks after a sale

[draggar]

I know this isn't the legal section but this concerns a platinum member where I bought a domain from recently.

Recently I bought a domain, yes I know it was a risky one (luckily it didn't cost too much). The seller claimed it made a few dollars a month though parking. I said in one of my offers as long as it didn't have any TM issues etc.

Now, about 2 1/2 weeks later I receive a UDRP / C&D letter from the entity that has the TM.

So, I know I don't have a chance keeping the domain, I don't have an issue handing it over. My question is that do you think it is suspicious that I receive this C&D so quickly after I get the domain or it could be just a coincidence?

 

[Rockefeller]

Not really, it's the buyer's burden to research these types of things before purchasing a domain name. You said you knew it was risky so you must've known it was TM'd. In this case, I would say the buyer takes the loss.

 

[draggar]

How can I research if someone received a C&D letter on a domain? Things like this usually aren't public.

 

[katherine]

The seller claimed it made a few dollars a month though parking. I said in one of my offers as long as it didn't have any TM issues etc.

Did you verify the stats ?

I also agree it's up to the buyer to investigate the name. TM issues are not always obvious without prior research. Anyway, if I get revenue on a domain that is not too generic I definitely want to know why and where traffic is coming from.
I think it was probably a matter of time until you get hit.

 

[draggar]

I did ask them if they sent out similar communications to the previous owner - I am definitely changing trader feedback if they did. The person would have clearly violated one of the points of my sale.

 

[Theo]

Normally, for you to receive a C&D just 2 1/2 weeks after the sale, means that the tm holder was actively monitoring the ownership info; potentially after having contacted the previous owner (seller). Does the UDRP name you as the Respondent? How long ago was the domain registered?

 

[draggar]

First, I received a C&D, not an official UDRP (my mistake on the wording).

The domain itself is a little over a year old (reg July 2007).

The person who sent me the letter said that they cannot discuss previous communications with third parties so that kills my investigation.

 

[Biggie]

Not really, it's the buyer's burden to research these types of things before purchasing a domain name. You said you knew it was risky so you must've known it was TM'd. In this case, I would say the buyer takes the loss.

i agree


best practice is to ask the seller if they have ever had any issues or received notices of infringement, before buying.

that way at least you could assume they were misleading if you get a letter soon after the sale.


then again, maybe it was just you who got caught holding the hot potato.


maybe the seller will offer or you can negotiate some portion of refund for your loss in such a short time.



i've had names for years before they get around to sending out a letter, if they ever do.

it's a matter of chance.


but i wouldn't change the sellers TR because of it.




you just have to make the choice to do biz with them in the future.

 

[britishbulldog]

Yeah you shouldn't hand them the domain over let them take it to wipo and get back that way at least it costs them a few thousand dollars !

 

[katherine]

Yeah you shouldn't hand them the domain over let them take it to wipo and get back that way at least it costs them a few thousand dollars !

Sure way to end up with your name in google along with cybersquatter label.

 

[draggar]

best practice is to ask the seller if they have ever had any issues or received notices of infringement, before buying.

that way at least you could assume they were misleading if you get a letter soon after the sale.

In my first offer I stated "pending on if there are any TM issues or notifications on the domain". He accepted my second offer, though.

ain, maybe it was just you who got caught holding the hot potato.

I haven't ruled that out.

maybe the seller will offer or you can negotiate some portion of refund for your loss in such a short time.

i've had names for years before they get around to sending out a letter, if they ever do.

it's a matter of chance.

but i wouldn't change the sellers TR because of it.

Yeah, I was going to see and discuss it with the seller after I chatted with the people who were claiming they have the rights to it. I am 99% sure it is legit, they are emailing me from, I'm responding to, and responding to my emails from an email based on a very old, stable, and well known domain. I agree that someone could spoof the initial email but after some research, I think it would be hard to spoof a conversation (I've verified the person though Google, too).

As for feedback, I'd only do that if I did get confirmation that they received any kind of TM notification or C&D from the domain in the past. It's odd, though, you can google the domain and you will get thousands of hits and most of which are NOT owned by the entity that owns the TM. Many of which are parked or self-parked (mini stires with tons of ads).

Yeah you shouldn't hand them the domain over let them take it to wipo and get back that way at least it costs them a few thousand dollars !

Um, no. I do not need my name stamped in WIPO as a squatter. Besides, I would have sold the name to them for less than 1/10th of a WIPO case cost (and that would have been a HUGE profit for me).

I thought about asking for what I paid for the domain (with proof of what I paid for it) plus an administration fee but I didn't want them to get the wrong impression, even though even that would have been a lot less than a WIPO (I'm sure some companies would do a WIPO as opposed to spending less to buy the domain just to prove a point).

Sure way to end up with your name in google along with cybersquatter label.

Exactly.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

Don't forget that the UDRP discusses bad faith if you offer the domain for sale for more than your out-of-pocket expenses. You may want to tell the TM holder what you paid for the domain and ask they pay your out-of-pocket expenses and you will transfer it. You may want to point to the part of the UDRP that says that.

 

[Theo]

Don't forget that the UDRP discusses bad faith if you offer the domain for sale for more than your out-of-pocket expenses. You may want to tell the TM holder what you paid for the domain and ask they pay your out-of-pocket expenses and you will transfer it. You may want to point to the part of the UDRP that says that.

I am not sure that "out of pocket expenses" refers to actual acquisition cost, other than reg fee.

 

[Biggie]

I am not sure that "out of pocket expenses" refers to actual acquisition cost, other than reg fee.

"out of pocket expenses" is always equal to "acquisition cost", when it relates to the domain only and it's parked.

at least that's my position whenever i have asked for compensation/renumeration.

whether or not they give it up is a different story.

if you developed a site or it's partially developed, that can show as a positive sign against the argument of squatting.

one can always use the argument that you were unaware that it was infringing on or that you were unaware of the tm and only using it as fan or informational site.

any google/affiliate ads could be explained as, potential income to continue to provide the service.

those arguments may or may not dismiss the issue, but they are viable statements if applicable.

on rare occassions companies may support your model with some restrictions/ exclusions, inclusions or statements of "non-affiliation".

in the rareset of instances, one really could get lucky with a grea idea and get bought out!

imo...

 

[gingeman]

give them the name, make a mental note that whilst it may be chance, the seller may also have lied (so don't deal with them again), and move on. Unfortunately you have to take the odd hit in this type of trade.

 

[draggar]

at least that's my position whenever i have asked for compensation/renumeration.

whether or not they give it up is a different story.
if you developed a site or it's partially developed, that can show as a positive sign against the argument of squatting.

I did have a note on the page that it was under development (I know, many people use that one..).

one can always use the argument that you were unaware that it was infringing on or that you were unaware of the tm and only using it as fan or informational site.

any google/affiliate ads could be explained as, potential income to continue to provide the service.

those arguments may or may not dismiss the issue, but they are viable statements if applicable.
on rare occassions companies may support your model with some restrictions/ exclusions, inclusions or statements of "non-affiliation".

While all good points, I don't think they're interested. While I did want to have a site / forum up I was planning on having a friend of mine run it since I would rather not be affiliated with this entity.

give them the name, make a mental note that whilst it may be chance, the seller may also have lied (so don't deal with them again), and move on. Unfortunately you have to take the odd hit in this type of trade.

I don't think so, I PM'd a little with the seller today and he says that he didn't receive any. I'll chalk this one up to experience and if I get a questionable domain in the future, to actually do something with it or leave it blank / "Under development" landing page as soon as I can (to avoid default parking pages, too).

 

[draggar]

This is odd, they now have it parked with Sedo.

 

[katherine]

Who ?

 

[Theo]

"out of pocket expenses" is always equal to "acquisition cost", when it relates to the domain only and it's parked.

at least that's my position whenever i have asked for compensation/renumeration.

whether or not they give it up is a different story.

if you developed a site or it's partially developed, that can show as a positive sign against the argument of squatting.

one can always use the argument that you were unaware that it was infringing on or that you were unaware of the tm and only using it as fan or informational site.

any google/affiliate ads could be explained as, potential income to continue to provide the service.

those arguments may or may not dismiss the issue, but they are viable statements if applicable.

on rare occassions companies may support your model with some restrictions/ exclusions, inclusions or statements of "non-affiliation".

in the rareset of instances, one really could get lucky with a grea idea and get bought out!

imo...

That does not compute.

You might spend thousands of dollars on a domain that gets contested and successfully given to a Complainant; this does not entitle you to compensation of equal amount.

 

[draggar]

The person I transferred it to. It seems that the initial emails were legit but they had me transfer it to someone outside their company, but that company also seems legit (long time domain name, no changes, established company for web development etc..)

Quite odd. Well, it is stuck with GoDaddy until mid September so if I discover that it is not legit I'm sure I can get it pulled back.