UDRP Filed Against DigitalCandy.com, Which is in Auction | DomainInvesting.com
101 Domain

UDRP Filed Against DigitalCandy.com, Which is in Auction


A couple of days ago, I noticed that DigitalCandy.com was in pending delete status and headed to auction. DigitalCandy.com is a domain name that previously (up until deletion) was home to a website operated by intellectual property attorney Stevan Lieberman of Greenberg and Lieberman. When I noticed the status of the domain name, I reached out to Stevan to see what happened and learned it was an error.

The domain name is currently in a private auction at SnapNames. Stevan told me he contacted Web.com to pull the auction because of the registered trademark claim and his company’s ongoing use but that Web.com refused to do so. Apparently the domain name went to auction without intervention.

This afternoon, Stevan filed a UDRP against the DigitalCandy.com domain name at the Asian Domain Name Dispute Resolution Centre. Stevan emailed me a copy of the UDRP filing, and according to the UDRP complaint, “On January 8, 2018 the domain name DigitalCandy.com was allowed to drop by the registrar due to a glitch in its registrar code. Cid Dec. ¶ ¶ 5 – 7 . Digital Candy was not notified that there was an issue with the domain name.”

Via email Stevan told me, “it appeared that the domain was set to auto-renew and in fact in the client panel it looked like the domain had been renewed.” Steven further told me “this fact is backed up by a declaration from the registrar’s CEO.”

I am not really sure what happens when a UDRP is filed against a domain name while it is in auction, but I guess we will see.

About The Author: Elliot Silver is an Internet entrepreneur and publisher of DomainInvesting.com. Elliot is also the founder and President of Top Notch Domains, LLC, a company that has sold seven figures worth of domain names in the last five years. Please read the DomainInvesting.com Terms of Use page for additional information about the publisher, website comment policy, disclosures, and conflicts of interest.

Reach out to Elliot: Twitter | | Facebook | Email

Comments (14)


    Just like any other drop story, I see no LIVE mark, not sure if working backwards can help them, bad situation for those auction buyers.

    January 11th, 2018 at 3:56 pm

    Elliot Silver

    According to Abdu Tarabichi‏, the domain name sold today for $10,501 https://twitter.com/AbduTarabichi/status/951554588922077184

    January 11th, 2018 at 3:59 pm


      So Abdu bid $400 according to that screenshot. Did he notify Stevan in advance, or during the auction?

      In reply to Elliot Silver | January 11th, 2018 at 4:31 pm


    In the end, your domains are as safe as the registrar they are kept in. Even with auto-renewal on, a registrar with a good back-end ensures quick visual confirmation of their registration status. Email notifications can’t always be relied on.

    A few weeks ago, I contacted Elequa, as he had allowed Archive.com to lapse. Not setting a premium domain such as this to automatically renew can be costly.

    January 11th, 2018 at 4:04 pm


    Why wouldn’t Snapnames/Web suspend the auction? Or at least notify the bidders that there’s a legal threat against the domain? Snap has definitely done both of those in years past, when did their policy change?

    And how are they going to transfer the domain to the high bidder when its on legal lock in a UDRP?

    Seems to me that the domain dropping was bad enough, but trying to auction it off after you’ve been given notice of the tm conflict is even worse.

    January 11th, 2018 at 4:14 pm


      Good question. For example, sister company NameJet has a clause in the footer of every domain auction for tm claims.

      In reply to Russ | January 11th, 2018 at 4:29 pm


      I vaguely remember the old Namejet and the old Snapnames notifying me when a domain had a legal challenge while it was being auctioned.

      I guess Web has given up on operating with integrity which is unusual for a publicly traded company.

      I suspect the buyer will pay and then Netsol locking it down.
      Buyer (alias – someone) knew about the legal challenge but continued to bid.
      The other bidder (alias – contact) was just as stupid.

      I hope Lieberman takes it to U.S. Federal court so he can sue for penalty payment and recoup legal fees.

      In reply to Russ | January 11th, 2018 at 5:34 pm


      Looking further into this.

      I suspect ‘someone’ was trying to help Lieberman.
      It appears ‘contact’ and Netsol were the ‘bad guys’ with this auction.

      In reply to Domainer | January 11th, 2018 at 5:46 pm


      Sounds about right to me. ‘contact’ appears to be Virtual Point Inc / Dave Lahoti. Googling the company name turns up a bunch of UDRPs and domain lawsuits.

      In reply to Domainer | January 12th, 2018 at 12:31 am


    I got an email from Steven a couple of days ago basically saying don’t bid on this domain or else. Not sure how he got access to my email address. Did namejet/snapnames give him a email list of bidder id’s? Very odd…

    No idea how a trademark on something so generic like “digital candy” holds up either.

    January 11th, 2018 at 5:17 pm


      If you do whois lookups on names you didn’t win you can easily tie the bidder ids to contact information. Some of us have very long histories on snap.

      In reply to JZ | January 12th, 2018 at 12:28 am


    I’m just curious if he is going to bill himself for all the hours he has spent on this on behalf of his client-self.

    January 11th, 2018 at 5:23 pm

Leave a Reply

Name *

Mail *