John Berryhill Comments About Enom Subpoena

Some domain investors received an email from Enom’s legal department yesterday notifying them about a subpoena that was received by the company. Enom sends these emails when the recipient’s information was found during an internal (Enom) search for documents related to the subpoena. If an investor received this email, it could be related to a Scratch Foundation lawsuit that was written about by Andrew Allemann earlier this year.

Domain industry attorney John Berryhill mentioned the subpoena email in a series of tweets yesterday. In the three tweets, John offered additional details and some commentary about the subpoena:

Of note, John referenced evidence against the plaintiff but he meant defendant.

Elliot Silver
Elliot Silver
About The Author: Elliot Silver is an Internet entrepreneur and publisher of Elliot is also the founder and President of Top Notch Domains, LLC, a company that has closed eight figures in deals. Please read the Terms of Use page for additional information about the publisher, website comment policy, disclosures, and conflicts of interest. Reach out to Elliot: Twitter | Facebook | LinkedIn


    • John probably got a bunch of calls and emails from people and was saving himself some time explaining his thoughts publicly rather than billing clients for calling about the same thing.

    • Bill, I see you have hired the same lawyer for your own “in rem” lawsuit over a one word .com. Must be Mr Weslow’s specialty now?

  1. Thats one possibility. Another is no one called and he’s just twitter trolling cause he has too much free time on his hands.

  2. While Bill’s concern for my time and use of social media is touching, and I’ll be sure to ask him for his help if I ever need managing either of them, there is another aspect to the data production that your readers, like many others I’ve heard from, may find helpful.

    I have also heard from at least three people who have never had any direct relationship with the defendant in the lawsuit at all, so there are probably several others in the same boat who may find this useful to understand why they received the notice.

    Even if you did not have any dealings with the defendant, you may have owned a name which dropped and was later registered by the defendant, or you may have picked up an expired name that, at some previous point in time was registered to the defendant. Additionally, you may be two steps or more removed from the defendant in a chain of owners.

    Because the scope of the subpoena would include any registrant data associated with a domain name which was ever associated with the defendant, then your data can come up even if you never had any dealings with the defendant.

Leave a Reply

Recent Posts Acquired for More than $10 Million

Last week, Hilco Digital's Andrew Miller shared that he and Larry Fischer brokered the sale of the domain name. Andrew mentioned that it...

Hilco Digital Assets Announces $10m Investment in Squadhelp

Squadhelp has become a leading brand naming marketplace, connecting business owners and entrepreneurs with domain names listed for sales on its platform. Led by...

Questions Related to Uni —> Afternic Parking Migration

If you are a Uniregistry customer, you most likely received an email explaining the upcoming migration of the Uniregistry Market and parking platform to...

Some Uni-Registered New gTLDs Will be Transferred to 1API

I received an email from Uni (formerly Uniregistry) that I initially thought was a Whois verification email and almost ignored. It was, in fact,...

Advice and Resources for a Newbie Domain Investor

Someone reached out to me on Twitter seeking advice for selling domain names. In a short tweet thread, I shared a few thoughts and...