What to Do If Someone Backs Out of a Domain Deal

Elliot Silver
-
10

If you’ve been investing in domain names long enough, it’s likely that you’ve experienced one of the most frustrating things that can happen to a domain investor. You’ve agreed to buy a domain name and the owner decides to back out for some reason.

For some it’s just frustrating, but for others there are bigger issues. Perhaps you started building out the domain name before you were in possession of it, or maybe you contacted potential buyers hoping to quickly flip it. Whatever the case, it’s a disappointment to say the least.

You may have options of you have an agreement in place, even if you don’t have an “official” contract with the seller.

My first recommendation is to be in touch with the seller and let him know you are not satisfied with the situation, especially if there isn’t an error/mistake behind the deal breaking down. Discuss options for buying other domain names or work out some sort of agreeable financial settlement for your inconvenience.

If this can’t be worked out, let him know you plan to seek legal council to remedy the situation if necessary. I like to keep lawyers out these types of situations, but let the seller know that is an option and perhaps just that threat will get him to sell, especially if he was reluctant to sell due to a higher offer.

Let the person know you plan to blog/write about the situation on a domain forum. If the seller is wrong and doesn’t have a good excuse (ie he received a higher offer or just doesn’t want to sell anymore), others should be warned about this for the future. If you opt for this route, make sure you state the facts accurately because what is written can not be taken back.

If you’ve exhausted all efforts on your own, you should be in touch with a lawyer who has domain name and IP experience (see this list of  domain name lawyers). A lawyer may be expensive, but if this is a key acquisition, you’ll want to know your legal recourse to complete the sale.

Who is Lovells?

Elliot Silver
-
28

A couple of months ago on Ycombinator, someone mentioned that he sold a domain name “to some woman claiming inexorably to want it for “just a personal homepage,'” but it turned out the company that acquired it appeared to be Facebook. The domain owner had sold the name for $1,500.

Although the information on the Whois record lists Facebook as the domain registrant, the email address on the record is globaladmin@lovellsnames.org. So who the heck is Lovells?

I did a bit of research, and it looks like the globaladmin@lovellsnames.org email address is connected to a number of very good domain names. Some of these names appear to include:

  • Play.com
  • Loco.com
  • Elegant.com
  • FB.me
  • Facebook.at
  • Bin.com

There were a number of other domain names, including some Facebook ccTLD domain names, but these are the most notable names I found during my cursory search.

I did notice a non-descriptive domain name that had the same registrant email address, and it might give a clue about Lovells. HoganLovells.com is registered to that same email address. Hogan Lovells is pretty huge law firm with over 40 offices around the world.

As Mike Berkens once wrote, the “1st Rule Of Dealing With Domain Offers Is: People Lie.“

Advice on Legal Questions

Elliot Silver
-
0

Have you ever taken a look at the terms and conditions page when you register a domain name or buy one in the aftermarket? In almost all cases, they are huge, and to someone without a legal degree, there are a lot of issues that aren’t exactly clear.

As a domain investor, I have read about quite a few legal issues on various websites, UDRP sites, and domain forums. It’s given me a basic understanding of domain related law, but not enough to provide any real advice to anyone.

For some reason, in the last few days, I’ve received a number of emails asking me for domain name legal advice. I’ve recommended that the people ask an IP lawyer with domain name experience. Sure, I might be able to give accurate advice, but I might also give bad advice that a lawyer would never give.

If you have a legal question, it’s best to ask a lawyer. I provided a list of domain name lawyers a while back, but here’s a refresher since there seems to be quite a few legal questions right now.

A lawyer may not be cheap, but bad advice can be costly.

Why I Am Not Worried About Domain Name Seizures

Elliot Silver
-
25

There have been a surprising number of mainstream articles regarding the United States’ Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a division of the Department of Homeland Security. Apparently, ICE seized the domain names of alleged file sharing websites without any type of notice to them. In fact, I can’t remember the last time I received so many “did you see this” emails/phone calls from friends who aren’t in the business.

I will preface this by saying that I don’t like the idea of the government acting as judge and juror, while not seeming to give the website and/or domain name owners the opportunity to defend their actions. It’s scary that the government can simply take over some websites at it’s whim without the owner’s chance to defend his or her actions..

However, if the companies that own the websites are or were doing something illegal while violating the rights of people in the US (whom ICE is responsible to protect), this seizure is not such a huge deal as some might make it out to be. I think John Berryhill’s comment on Mike Berkens’ blog sums it up pretty well, comparing the seizure to that of a drug smuggler whose boat was used to smuggle drugs illegally.

Eventually, these website operates should have their day in court, but taking away their platform is a way to temporarily stop them from doing what the government believes is an illegal act (although it seems pretty simple to move to another domain name).  I don’t know where to draw the line when it comes to seizures such as this, but if a company happens to be brazenly  flouting  the law, I am not opposed to government intervention. If these website operators are in the right, then they will certainly have their day in court.

Some people seem to be making a big leap by fearing their domain names could potentially be put at risk. Sure, if you are doing something the US government finds  blatantly  illegal, then perhaps yours could be at risk. If someone is arrested for smoking weed in a public park, or firing a gun in the air in that park, it doesn’t mean you are being put at risk of arrest if you go for a jog in the park. If people were being rounded up for having a picnic in the park, that would be a different story.

Domain Name Implications as Company Fights Over New Hampshire Geographical Trademark: Mount Washington

Elliot Silver
-
3

Mount Washington in New Hampshire

I grew up in southern New Hampshire and I skied in NH’s White Mountains many times, so this story was interesting for business and personal reasons. It’s also something that Dark Blue Sea should note because of a domain name in its portfolio.

According to ABC television affiliate WMUR, it looks like the owner of the Mt. Washington Hotel (a landmark hotel in the region) is fighting to prevent other lodging businesses from using the term, “Mount Washington.” The interesting aspect of this is that there is a mountain called Mount Washington where the hotels are located, hence the geographical descriptor.

If you live on the East Coast, you’ve probably seen the bumper stickers that say, “This car has climbed Mt. Washington,” and that’s the term that is being battled for right now (specifically related to lodging according to the article).

One reason this is interesting from a domain standpoint is that the company could come after seemingly generic domain names like MountWashingtonHotels.com, which happens to be owned by DBS subsidiary Protopixel.

Although Mt. Washington isn’t that big, imagine if a hotel/resort named the  the Las Vegas Resort or the Europe Spa tried to trademark those regional terms with regards to lodging. High value domain names like LasVegasHotels.com or EuropeVacations.com could conceivably come under pressure from the trademark owner if they were permitted to do so.

This may be a big leap, but if a precedent is set legally, I am sure others will attempt to follow suit. It’s just some food for thought.

Photo: Flickr

Guest Post: Court Denies Motion Against WebQuest in Hayward.com Case

Elliot Silver
-
10

This is a guest post written by Brett Lewis of the Lewis & Hand law firm in Brooklyn, New York regarding a ruling from the Hayward.com lawsuit filed by WebQuest.com, Inc.  Brett’s firm is currently representing WebQuest. You can read some background on the bad  Hayward.com UDRP decision on Mike’s Blog. It looks like the litigation is off to a good start for WebQuest, and I wish them all the best in its legal battle for this valuable geodomain name.

In the case of WebQuest.com, Inc. v. Hayward Industries, Inc., 1:10 cv00306-OWW-JLT, the Court denied Hayward Industries’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, granting an early victory in the case to WebQuest.

Hayward Industries, which manufactures pool lights, pumps, and filters, had argued that even accepting all of the facts pleaded by WebQuest in its complaint as true, there was no question that WebQuest had acted in bad faith in registering the <Hayward.com> domain name.    The Court also granted WebQuest’s motion to strike Hayward Industries’ exhibits as “unnecessary evidentiary materials.”

Hayward Industries had tried to use those exhibits to support its claim for judgment on the pleadings, a claim which the Court said “bordered on the frivolous.”  The Court denied WebQuest’s motion for sanctions, however, finding that the motion, “was not so devoid of merit that it violates Rule 11.”

The case arose after WebQuest lost a UDRP decision over the <Hayward.com> and <wwwHayward.com> domain names and filed an action in Court to stop the WIPO-ordered transfer.    Although the decision comes at an early stage in the case, the Court’s ruling may signal that Hayward Industries will face a difficult task at establishing bad faith.

The Court stated that: “Defendant cites no authority for the proposition that bad faith may be found despite an entity’s lack of knowledge of a trademark holder’s existence.”  Given WebQuest’s claim that it registered the domain names for their value as geographic identifiers for the Bay Area city of Hayward, California, the Court found that, “Plaintiff’s activity does not as a matter of law establish the quintessential case of bad faith intent to profit contemplated by section 1125.”

1...757677...95Page 76 of 95