Interesting Possible Domain Acquisition Scam Attempt

Elliot Silver
-
26

Yesterday morning, I received an email that was supposedly from a person who worked at a multi-national bank, and his company wanted my help in acquiring a ccTLD domain name. The person said he had trouble getting in touch with the domain owner, and his company needed the name for an urgent project.

Based on the email’s url, it appeared to be from a person at that bank, and upon my reply, he asked me to either put him in touch with the domain owner or to negotiate on his behalf. I told him I don’t offer negotiation services, but I would try to get in touch with the owner for him and put him in touch.

I reached out to the owner via email, and I was able to get a reply from him within a few hours. I thought it was a bit strange that I could get a reply so easily but the person from the large bank couldn’t. Nevertheless, I emailed the guy from the bank to let him know I was able to get in touch with the domain owner, and he asked me to offer him up to $1 million for the domain name paid using an escrow service.

At this point, I really felt something was fishy, and I looked at the email headers to determine that the email hadn’t originated at the bank, and in fact, the url in the original email was spoofed. I again reiterated that I don’t do negotiations and I have not heard back from the guy.

I don’t know where the scam comes in with this, but it’s clear there was an attempt made. Perhaps they were going to ask me to front some money or send me a check that is in a greater amount than a deal I could strike, and I would cash it and send them the difference, which wouldn’t be noticed until the check didn’t clear, and I would be out that money. Whatever the case is, it appears that this is a new scam.

If you get an email like I received, keep in mind that it could be a scam.

Alleged Domain Name Renewal Scammer Indicted

Elliot Silver
-
15

There’s an article in today’s Salt Lake Tribune about an indictment against a person who allegedly created companies that allegedly tricked businesses and individuals into paying around $1.8 million for “phony renewal services” for domain names.

The Acting US Attorney in Utah sent out a press release announcing the news that a 24 count mail fraud and money laundering indictment was issued for Ronald Robert Scott of Draper, Utah. The mail fraud charges carry potential penalties of up to 20 years in jail each, and the money laundering charges potentially carry penalties of up to 10 years in jail for each charge. The indictment also seeks a return of $1,864.484.51.

According to the Salt Lake Tribune article,

The indictment alleges that Scott created two fictitious entities, DomainNameUSA.net and Netsolutions.net, and obtained mailing lists of entities throughout the nation and their domain names.

He then allegedly created invoices telling the registrants that their domain name was about to expire and asking for renewal fees ranging from $25 to $199 for periods of one to five years.

I have received plenty of official-looking letters in the mail regarding domain name renewals, but since I know my domain registrars very well, I have always thrown these letters in the trash.

From what I’ve seen in Google (searching for domain name renewal scam, there are a number of companies that send similar letters in the mail. Andrew has an article about one, PC World discusses an email-based domain renewal scam, and even CatholicWeb.com has information about something that sounds similar.

Keep in mind, as the press release further notes, “an indictment is not a finding of guilt. Defendants charged in indictments are presumed innocent unless or until proven guilty in court.“

Ohio Supreme Court Rules Commenter in Virginia Can Be Brought to Court in Ohio

Elliot Silver
-
40

I read an interesting Ohio Supreme Court ruling, and I think it would behoove anyone who posts comments on Internet forums and blogs to read. In the case of Kauffman Racing Equip., L.L.C., v. Roberts, the state Supreme Court ruled that a Virginia resident, Scott Roberts, will need to respond to a court case brought against him in Ohio by Kauffman Racing Equipment (KRE), an Ohio company that does business throughout the United States.

KRE claimed that “Roberts posted numerous rancorous criticisms of KRE on various websites devoted to automobile racing equipment and related subjects.” From my review of the comments, they are similar in affect to those I see posted on domain forums and blogs about some of the domain companies with whom many of us do business. Here are a couple that were listed in the Court’s slip opinion referenced above:

  • “Now, I have and have had since the day the block was delivered, a USELESS BLOCK.   I didn’t say worthless!   I plan to get a lot of mileage out of   it[.]   And when I’m [sic] done Steve Kauffman will be able to attest to its worth.”
  • “You don’t seem to understand.   As far as Steve kauffinan [sic] is concerned the issue is resolved. * * * Again, this is not to get a resolution.   I have a much bigger and dastardly plan than that and this is the perfect place to start. * * * (LOL) * * *   Here is another good board to visit! * * * Just trying to help other potential victims.”   (Emoticons omitted.)

The crux of the case is that Scott Roberts felt the Ohio court didn’t have jurisdiction since he is not a resident of the state of Ohio. After KRE filed its case in an Ohio court in 2006, the court ruled that it didn’t have jurisdiction, and the company appealed to the Fifth District Court of Appeals, which reversed the trial court’s decision.

In it’s slip opinion issued a week ago, the Ohio Supreme Court ruled that because Roberts’ comments would cause harm to the Ohio company in the state Ohio, the case could be brought against Roberts in Ohio. I have no legal background so I won’t get into a discussion about why the court made its findings, but I do think it’s important for people in this business to take note.

If you post something defamatory or negative about a company in another state, you may not be immune from a court case in that other state, which can obviously be expensive and burdensome. People often post things rapidly out of frustration or anger, and as the saying goes, you can’t unring a bell. There’s an interesting article about the case on RCPF.org.

Did UDRP Decision Get Revision After Publication Without Notification?

Elliot Silver
-
8

I read something pretty surprising on CircleID this morning pertaining to the Wooot.com UDRP decision that has reportedly been revised after publication. I initially wrote about the decision because I found it strange that the domain name was canceled by the panelist, and Andrew followed-up with more questions about the decision. Domain investor and frequent domain watchdog, George Kirikos, wrote the Circle ID article.

According to Kirikos’ research (and documented in Andrew’s article), someone removed the following important sentence from the UDRP decision after it had been published: “Complainant held a trademark registration for “AOL” and Respondent registered the domain name “iaol.com.”‘

Kirikos explains that the reason this line is important was that “This was completely out of place and nonsensical, because the complainant was Woot, not AOL, and iaol.com was a reference to a completely different case in 2002. This was the original “smoking gun” that caused the public to dig further into other cases of “cut/paste” amongst panelists. An archive of the original decision (cached on April 22, 2010) was made at Webcitation.”

There also doesn’t appear that there is any explanation as to why this UDRP appears to have been revised post-publication nor does there appear to be any notice issued on the National Arbitration Forum website. It doesn’t seem right that a UDRP decision could be revised after it’s issued without any sort of explanation or notice, especially when this particular section of the UDRP is one of the things that made Kirikos identify the cut/paste UDRP problem in the first place.

Domain & Development Legal Questions Are Answered

Elliot Silver
-
0

People ask a lot of interesting questions in the legal section of forums like DNForum, Namepros and DomainState, and some of the better known domain lawyers visit those forums and give good information. This is pretty generous, because a lawyer’s knowledge is generally his best asset, and if he’s giving the advice away for free, it’s beneficial to the domain community possibly at his business’ detriment.

Marc Randazza is a First Amendment attorney who is familiar with domain law. He is frequently one of the legal professionals who provides commentary and insight in response to questions posed on the popular domain forums. I was looking at one of his replies on DN Forum, and I saw that he referenced a post on his frequently updated website/blog, The Legal Satyricon.

Not only was the answer to the person’s question answered in Randazza’s blog post, but I saw quite a bit of valuable information on the site. Although the blog doesn’t solely focus on domain names (in fact, domain name law is just one of many topics), there is a wealth of valuable information on Randazza’s site.

I have never engaged Randazza for legal services before, but I appreciate all of the information he shares on his blog.

Free Domain Sales Agreement?

Elliot Silver
-
3

I’ve seen a few posts on domain forums where people are asking for a free boiler plate domain sales agreement to use. In my opinion, if you feel you need to use a sales agreement in the first place, you should probably contact a domain attorney or other local IP lawyer and pay for one. It’s likely the cost will be less than you think since most will be able to customize a standard agreement based on your needs.

So why do I think you should have a custom agreement drafted? The primary reason is that different countries and even states have different regulations when it comes to contracts and possibly even the parameters of your sale. In addition, your sale may have special circumstances (using Escrow.com, paying via wire transfer, Paypal payment) or it may have other non-standard issues that need to be considered.

If you use a boiler plate agreement and run into troubles, it would probably be fairly easy for an opposing lawyer to pick that apart, which could cause complications for you. If you have an issue with an agreement that you purchased from a lawyer, you should at least have support from that lawyer to help fend off any dispute.

At least in my opinion, if you are concerned enough about a domain sale that you want to use a sales agreement/contract (I recommend using one unless there’s a good reason not to use one), you should pay the few hundred dollars to have it created for you and specially tailored for your company’s needs. It would be a shame to have a false sense of security to save a couple hundred dollars.

1...777879...95Page 78 of 95