Forums
New posts
New posts
Search forums
Market
Domains/Websites Wanted
.com Domain Market
gTLD Domain Market
ccTLD Domain Market
Web3 Domain Market
Third-Level Domain Market
Adult Domain Market
What's New
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Account Upgrade
Premium Members Directory
Log in
Register
What's New
calendar
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Enjoy unlimited access to all forum features for FREE! Optional upgrade available for extra perks.
Forums
Domain Discussion
General Domain Name Discussion
Rob Monster wants to get Voc(a)l.
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Biggie" data-source="post: 2344679" data-attributes="member: 1195"><p>Hi</p><p></p><p>from what i gather</p><p>there were some conflicts of interests that persuaded that decision, along with some contrary or contradictory statements submitted.</p><p></p><p><em>The inaccurate disclosures in this case also call into question the certification in the Response, signed by the Respondent’s counsel, Daniel R. Price, “that the information contained in this Response is to the best of the Respondent’s knowledge complete and accurate, that this Response is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Response are warranted under the Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument.” The documentation that the Respondent eventually submitted with its second and third supplemental submissions directly contradicts the representations in the initial Response, which at minimum makes the Panel question Mr. Price’s due diligence in signing the certificatio</em>n.</p><p></p><p>also, there seems to be an issue, as it relates to ICANN policy, when the registrar, the ceo and the privacy service are all run by same person</p><p></p><p><em>Given the Respondent’s misconduct and misrepresentations as discussed above, the Panel would not in any event consider it appropriate to enter a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in favor of the Respondent.</em></p><p></p><p></p><p>but, there is something i noticed, which might help:</p><p></p><p><em>Further supporting this inference is the fact that the Respondent’s explanation for purchasing the disputed domain name is not credible. In his declaration, Mr. Monster explained that he purchased the disputed domain name because he “the disputed domain showed a NameRenter landing page for several years,” and Mr. Monster “intended to use it in exactly the same way.” According to the Internet Wayback Machine, the disputed domain name was previously offered for use through NameRenter for <strong>USD100 per year</strong>. Such a use would hardly justify purchasing the disputed domain name for <strong>USD10,000</strong>.</em></p><p></p><p>above, they note the price difference, as an unjustified purchase price, which is used against the respondent...</p><p>however, they fail to show the incremental price increases for those types of names and what they would be worth today, in the marketplace.</p><p></p><p>being able to justify paying that amount, could nullify that.</p><p>however....</p><p>if, the respondent had of used the domain "exactly", as they stated they would, then perhaps things may have been different:</p><p><em>Indeed, contrary to Mr. Monster’s representation, he is not using the disputed domain name <strong>in exactly</strong> the same way. Rather, at least as early as April 15, 2021, and continuing through the date of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves not to a NameRenter page but to a page offering the disputed domain name for sale. Specifically, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a website that states, inter alia:</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p style="text-align: center"><em>Epik</em></p> <p style="text-align: center"><em>vocl.com</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p style="text-align: center"><em>ACCEPTING OFFERS</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p style="text-align: center"><em>Domain owner will consider reasonable offers</em></p> <p style="text-align: center"><em>MAKE OFFER</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em></em></p><p style="text-align: center"><em>CONTACT DOMAIN OWNER</em></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>though the perceived notion of taking advantage in buying the name for 75% less, 4 days earlier might not go away.</p><p>along with prior knowledge of pending complaint:</p><p></p><p><em>Most troubling to the Panel is that Respondent purchased the disputed domain name from Mr. Lindell whom, the Respondent knew, would be at risk of a loss in a legal challenge. The Respondent appears to have taken advantage of that opportunity by buying the disputed domain name from Mr. Lindell for a price which represented a significant 75 per cent reduction from the price Mr. Lindell paid just four days earlier. These facts support an inference that the Respondent was attempting to cleanse the bad faith that was attached to the disputed domain name by changing the ownership of the disputed domain name. Although this conduct is not technically cyberflight, since the transfer was made before the Complainant filed the instant proceeding, it appears to be a conceptually related effort at bad faith given that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s objections at the time he acquired the disputed domain name. Cf. <a href="https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/" target="_blank">WIPO Overview 3.0</a>, section 4.4.6.</em></p><p></p><p>after reading in entirety, to me, it looks like an uphill battle</p><p>for sure, i'm no lawyer, but i can, follow the logic.</p><p></p><p>perhaps for the future, as this case may set precedence.... </p><p>one might consider "divesting" interest in some of those holdings - unless they can be legitimized from an ICANN review. </p><p></p><p>Again, Good Luck!</p><p></p><p>imo...</p><p></p><p><em></em></p><p> <em></em></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Biggie, post: 2344679, member: 1195"] Hi from what i gather there were some conflicts of interests that persuaded that decision, along with some contrary or contradictory statements submitted. [I]The inaccurate disclosures in this case also call into question the certification in the Response, signed by the Respondent’s counsel, Daniel R. Price, “that the information contained in this Response is to the best of the Respondent’s knowledge complete and accurate, that this Response is not being presented for any improper purpose, such as to harass, and that the assertions in this Response are warranted under the Rules and under applicable law, as it now exists or as it may be extended by a good-faith and reasonable argument.” The documentation that the Respondent eventually submitted with its second and third supplemental submissions directly contradicts the representations in the initial Response, which at minimum makes the Panel question Mr. Price’s due diligence in signing the certificatio[/I]n. also, there seems to be an issue, as it relates to ICANN policy, when the registrar, the ceo and the privacy service are all run by same person [I]Given the Respondent’s misconduct and misrepresentations as discussed above, the Panel would not in any event consider it appropriate to enter a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in favor of the Respondent.[/I] but, there is something i noticed, which might help: [I]Further supporting this inference is the fact that the Respondent’s explanation for purchasing the disputed domain name is not credible. In his declaration, Mr. Monster explained that he purchased the disputed domain name because he “the disputed domain showed a NameRenter landing page for several years,” and Mr. Monster “intended to use it in exactly the same way.” According to the Internet Wayback Machine, the disputed domain name was previously offered for use through NameRenter for [B]USD100 per year[/B]. Such a use would hardly justify purchasing the disputed domain name for [B]USD10,000[/B].[/I] above, they note the price difference, as an unjustified purchase price, which is used against the respondent... however, they fail to show the incremental price increases for those types of names and what they would be worth today, in the marketplace. being able to justify paying that amount, could nullify that. however.... if, the respondent had of used the domain "exactly", as they stated they would, then perhaps things may have been different: [I]Indeed, contrary to Mr. Monster’s representation, he is not using the disputed domain name [B]in exactly[/B] the same way. Rather, at least as early as April 15, 2021, and continuing through the date of this decision, the disputed domain name resolves not to a NameRenter page but to a page offering the disputed domain name for sale. Specifically, the Respondent is using the disputed domain name for a website that states, inter alia: [/I] [CENTER][I]Epik vocl.com[/I][/CENTER] [I] [/I] [CENTER][I]ACCEPTING OFFERS[/I][/CENTER] [I] [/I] [CENTER][I]Domain owner will consider reasonable offers MAKE OFFER[/I][/CENTER] [I] [/I] [CENTER][I]CONTACT DOMAIN OWNER[/I][/CENTER] though the perceived notion of taking advantage in buying the name for 75% less, 4 days earlier might not go away. along with prior knowledge of pending complaint: [I]Most troubling to the Panel is that Respondent purchased the disputed domain name from Mr. Lindell whom, the Respondent knew, would be at risk of a loss in a legal challenge. The Respondent appears to have taken advantage of that opportunity by buying the disputed domain name from Mr. Lindell for a price which represented a significant 75 per cent reduction from the price Mr. Lindell paid just four days earlier. These facts support an inference that the Respondent was attempting to cleanse the bad faith that was attached to the disputed domain name by changing the ownership of the disputed domain name. Although this conduct is not technically cyberflight, since the transfer was made before the Complainant filed the instant proceeding, it appears to be a conceptually related effort at bad faith given that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s objections at the time he acquired the disputed domain name. Cf. [URL='https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/']WIPO Overview 3.0[/URL], section 4.4.6.[/I] after reading in entirety, to me, it looks like an uphill battle for sure, i'm no lawyer, but i can, follow the logic. perhaps for the future, as this case may set precedence.... one might consider "divesting" interest in some of those holdings - unless they can be legitimized from an ICANN review. Again, Good Luck! imo... [I] [/I] [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Domain Discussion
General Domain Name Discussion
Rob Monster wants to get Voc(a)l.
Top
Bottom