snubbr.com

GoDaddy testimonials : Recommend I use GoDaddy?? UPDATE: Lawyer.im decision appealed & overturned!

Get GoDaddy web hosting for just $1.99. Click here to use coupon...

Special $7.49 .COM sales. Click here for this special deal...
Can you believe that? They actually think that they are entitled to this ultra-generic domain because I'm in the states and they tried to register it first! They left the name in their cart for days before attempting to pay for it! How do I know this?... They actually made this statement in their complaint!!!.

This really ticks me off...

Comments (183)

Hi,.

I just saw your thread, and I recommend register www.LAYWERSSUCK.COM , I checked it, it's available :-).

Make a forum or a blog and as soon someone threatens you , post their name, letters, everything what you received from them and make it public :-).

I know, it's not easy to handle the legal stuff in domaining but at least you can "flame" the guys who put some pressure on u.....:-).

Cheers.

Liquidcherry..

Comment #1

That's what I'm thinking. I would get it if the proper spelling were available, but it's not, unfortunately. I've seen people put this kind of thing up on the site or domain that's being threatened...

Comment #2

But you need to pick and choose your battles wisely. This one, you are better off replying that the name is descriptive and generic and that's it. I wouldn't play games, especially since the other party IS a lawyer. They could file papers all day long since they have the vested interest in the domain. It would appear they are trying to bully you...

Comment #3

In britain, there is no such thing as lawyers per say, we have solicitors and barristers, both are "lawyers" but it's not a term used much. Well, I don't use it anyway..

Comment #4

DNQ summed it up well. These guys can make your life miserable (if they want to). Give the standard defenses and you'll most likely win the case...

Comment #5

Isle of Man uses "lawyer", the US uses "lawyer".....

Comment #6

This is what the IM DRP (https://www.nic.im/pdfs/disputeresolution.pdf) states...

"The Respondent has 15 days to provide a written response in accordance with section 10 below and with reference to section 4 demonstrating why it is not an abusive registration.".

The lawfirm has made several "points" in their complaint. Should I address each one of their points or should I just make a paragraph that explains my position in reference to section 4 of the IM DRP... or should I do both?..

Comment #7

I wonder if I should be expecting a similiar letter I have solicitor.im...

Comment #8

Were I you, I would specifically refute each of their points, even if the answer is repetitive. Be as thorough as possible, these things matter when you're dealing with people who twist words for a living.

Ripley...

Comment #9

Thanks for all your advice fellas! Do you think it would be unethical or illegal to post the complaint here so that I may get further advice from Namepros members?..

Comment #10

Are they claiming some sort of trademark rights to the term 'lawyer'? I don't see a legal or ethical problem with that...

Comment #11

Lawyer is such a generic term they are not going to be able to claim a copyright to the domain. Unless the registar's TOS has anything about the shoping cart in it. I don't think they have anything tangable against you. They sound upset, because it seems like one of those I had a idea for a domain and it was free when I searched for it, but I waited a few day's to get it and someone else got it, damn them...

Comment #12

Sucks that this has happened to you. I don't see how they feel they have a right to the name.

Keep us posted. I have a few .im names as well including realtor.im, would hate to get a letter from every realtor on the Isle of Man..

Comment #13

Thanks everyone for your comments! Here is the complaint in it's entirety except for where I've edited out names and such. The comments in red are mine, of course.

4th August 2006.

Domicilium (10M) Ltd Domicilium House.

32-34 Malew Street Castletown.

Isle of Man.

IM91AF.

Dear Sirs,.

Complaint.

1. We write to lodge a complaint about the abusive registration of a domain name that [A Bunch Of Noobs, Inc.] attempted to purchase on the 1st July 2006 when the new .im domain became available. Okee Dokee.

2. The background to the complaint is that at approximately 12.20 am on the 1st July, our IT Manager [Nick Domnoob] created a new account on the www.nic.im site and added, on behalf of the firm, inter alia, www.lawyer.im to his shopping basket. Ok, you put the name in your shopping cart... good first step to registering it.

3. When Mr. [Domnoob] arrived at work on the following Monday morning (3rd July), he had received an email from Domicilium (the company who is regulating and managing the .im domain on behalf of the Government). The email requested that he click on a link to confirm the registration. Mr. [Domnoob] duly did so and at that stage, all of the domains that we had expressed an interest in were still in this firm's shopping basket. So, you left the domain sitting in your basket over the weekend? Since it was still there when you got back to work, it MUST still be reserved for your firm! (I really don't understand why they got an email reminder from Domicilium though?).

4. On 4th July, Mr. [Domnoob] attempted to pay for the domains using a credit card. For some reason, the payment procedure failed. At this juncture, Mr. [Domnoob] contacted Domicilium and asked if they could invoice the firm for the various domains.

Mr. [Domnoob] was subsequently advised by Domicilium that as he did not complete the payment within one hour after commencing, the domains once again became available, notwithstanding that we had expressed an interest in the domains and contacted Domicilium with a view to arranging payment for them. No negligence!?!? You left the domain in your basket for over 72 hours and then attempted to pay for it! I wonder why your payment failed!? BTW, I registered the domain on July 5th according to the whois! What were you guy's doing to keep you from getting the name? (Again, I am confused about their statement that "Domicilium set up a new registration on the nic.im site and it was at this point that the domain name was lost." How could it have been lost when my whois say's I reg'd the domain on the 5th???).

5. We are aware that the Respondent's details are as follows: [Me, my address, my phone, etc.] Yup, that's me.

6. We understand that the nameserver that Mr. [Me] is registered under is what is known as a domain parking site where people store unwanted domains to sell them on later. You are right about it being called a domain parking site. Good research! I really like the statement that "...people store unwanted domains to sell them on later." What an awesome idea. I have some domains that I don't want.

7. We note that at paragraph 3 (A) (i) (a) of the IM Dispute Resolution Procedure, it states that "a non-exhaustive list of factors which may be evidence that the domain name is an abusive registration is ... circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or otherwise acquired the domain name primarily for the purposes of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly associated with acquiring or using the domain name". This is where the true genius of lawyers comes into play. What a good way to use this paragraph against me. If I sell it to anyone in the practice of law, then that's a competitor (and a no-no).

This of course would've been impossible, since I didn't know they existed. I've since decided that I won't sell it to anyone, for any amount of money, unless it's much less than what I paid for it (jk). Of course, I really chose this domain to later develop it. Just like every other dang domain I own.

8. It is absurd that the domain name is registered to someone in the United States who, in all likelihood, has no connection with the Isle of Man or more importantly, the law or the provision of legal services on the Island. It is clear that the Respondent has no other interest in the domain name except to make a profit. Nope, that's where you're wrong. I am in this business to lose sleep, add stress to my life, provoke arguments with my spouse, spend less time with my daughter, lose massive amounts of money, and to generally kick myself over bad decisions. USA kicks ass, by the way!.

9. The IM Rules at paragraph 3.2 states that "We (Domicilium) will accept applications which comply with the Rules and register domain names on a first come first served basis." In this case, it was only an error at the payment stage that caused the domain names to be lost. To all intents and purposes, this firm was the first to attempt to register the domain name. How in the world can you make this statement? The only accurate statement that can be made about your activity was that you possibly were the first entity to put the domain in your cart. The attempt to actually register the domain came over 3 days later!.

10. In the circumstances, we suggest that the domain name is transferred to this firm as the names were in our shopping basket and would have been paid for and registered had there not been a problem with the payment stage. Yeah, uh huh, right. You obviously are under the misconception that once a domain is in your shopping cart, no one else can grab it while you're all out partying over the weekend.

11. In compliance with the IM Dispute Resolution Procedure, we confirm that the information contained in this complaint is true and complete to the best of our knowledge. To the best of YOUR knowledge is probably an accurate statement.

12. We are not aware of any legal proceedings that have been commenced or terminated in connection with the www.lawyer.im domain name. That's because there have been none. Duh.

13. [A Bunch Of Noobs, Inc.] will submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Isle of Man courts with respect to any legal proceedings seeking to reverse the decision requiring the suspension, cancellation, transfer or other amendment to a domain name registration and we agree that any such legal proceedings will be governed by Manx law. Me too, I guess.

14. We agree that our claim and any remedies concerning the registration of the domain name, the dispute, or the dispute's resolution shall be solely against the Respondent and that neither you nor your employees shall be liable for anything done or omitted in connection with any proceedings under the Dispute Resolution Service. This relieves Nic.im of all responsibility when it comes to the registrar's systems or actions leading to the loss of the domain in question. That's the way I read it anyway. The 1-hour+ lagtime, nic.im not explaining to you guys how a domain shopping basket works, etc... all is forgiven by this statement!.

15. We also agree that if the Designated Official orders a transfer of the domain name, we will be bound by your Terms and Conditions for the Registration of Domain Names, and in particular, the provisions relating to your processing of personal data. I don't see it happening, personally.

16. Our [personal android, Mr. Ly Likeadog], a partner in our commercial department, is available to discuss this matter on [their phone number and email addy]. I think that if you had a leg to stand on, they would have just transferred the name to you since you've proven so completely that it was entirely a series of unfortunate technical issues that resulted in the loss of YOUR domain.

We look forward to hearing from you on this matter.

Yours [pitifully],.

[A Bunch Of Noobs, Inc.] You probably can't tell by my humorous attitude but, I AM SOOOOO PISSED ABOUT THIS TIME WASTING BULLCRAP!..

Comment #14

Hi,.

From the sounds of it they are in IOM and you should simply work out a deal with them. The fact is you are a domain addict, you've created a business model around this and it (I assume pays *some* bills).

They look at you as some domain squatter from U.S that has no rights. The fact is you do have rights, but there is a line that must be justified.

1. You purchased the domain for resale/development..

2. They are upset, especially them being in IOM for starters and feel they deserve it .. most likely to stimulate their own business in the local area..

3. There is bad faith and of course .. plain ol' let's talk business.

If they are laywers, they will sue you and make it hurt. You will have some say in the matter and your voice will be heard but you may (in the end) pay the price.

I would advise you to get a laywer if not done so already, if you plan to persue. However, I'd hit them up first and mention it's for sale at a price which they should be able to afford.

"I have it, you want it, I registered it first, the name is generic and you simply need to pay for it.".

Good luck!..

Comment #15

Realtor IS NOT generic.. it is a Registered mark which the NAR vigorously defends. That is an instant loss is challanged.

They are trying to bully you and you will be able to use thier own letter to you as a defense. It is a first come first served process. The lawyer did not purchase the domain, he was merely looking at it. By his own admission, he did not purchase the domain. As far as abusive registration..

7. We note that at paragraph 3 (A) (i) (a) of the IM Dispute Resolution Procedure, it states that "a non-exhaustive list of factors which may be evidence that the domain name is an abusive registration is ... circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or otherwise acquired the domain name primarily for the purposes of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly associated with acquiring or using the domain name".

They have to prove you know about them and they have to prove they have exclusive rights to "lawyer". This is the definition of abusive registration according to the DSP.

At this point, with the value of the domain, it is in your best interest to contact a lawyer, there are serveral good ones here. That is the best advise you will get on this one...

Comment #16

These lawyers seem like they don't know computers much if they left their domain in a shopping basket over the weekend! I'd say it's fairly safe they don't know Computer laws either.

Take this example, if you are in a shop, and someone takes something from your basket, tehy aren't stealing it from you, it's still the shop's until someone has paid for the item at the checkout and you receive a receipt for your goods. You can moan as much as you like about this as the fact of the matter is is that they were trying to pay for something that shouldn't have been in their basket any longer.

Surely the error then is for domicilium to say it was in their basket still. You wouldn't say to a blind man that he still had a loaf of bread in his basket at the checkout, would you?..

Comment #17

If they sue you file a counterclaim ....... then it gets real expensive for them........ you may could even get a settlement off them when it's all said and done... because if they cant pay for a domain name (obviously since they took 3 days to check out) after they have to start spending real money to move forward... they may want out more than you..

Comment #18

Just say to them 'I didnt break any laws and I didnt know you wanted to buy the domain, so I will be willing to sell the domain to you for 1000. That way it covers the costs of any legal stuff you plan against us and also pays for the domain costs and the time you have wasted.

I believe that this is a fair offer as we have not broken any laws which I can think of. It is just unfriendly business to send me all this lawyer jargon when you cant even understand the internet jargon correctly. I have been doing domains longer than you and I know the legal know-how of domains and you clearly dont, even though it is supposed to be your jobs.

It is your call mate. Make history with the first xxxx .im sale or leave us alone to get on with our business. Remember that we have done nothing wrong and you have no right to just 'take' the domain off us. We are willing to put up a fight to keep this valueable domain.

Brian'.

I am sure that you will get a good outcome. After all, if they are serious and want the name, they would do this...

Comment #19

Hi, call me bored... I am, I was looking for an excuse not to stuff envelopes and found this... I've been in situations like this before, not regarding domains but other legal type situations with people who have access to lawyer-hours (either lawyers themselves or deep-pocket company)...

Suggestions:.

Say 'we', not 'I'... Refer to yourself as an organization, a company. Refer to assistance or advice you got as 'legal advice, legal direction, legal advisors, my counsel, my legal counsel'.

Talk the lingo, if it can be said in 5 words, then use 10... Below, in red are my responses to this absurd claim...

1. We write to lodge a complaint about the abusive registration of a domain name that [A Bunch Of Noobs, Inc.] attempted to purchase on the 1st July 2006 when the new .im domain became available. Quantify 'abuse'.

3. When Mr. [Domnoob] arrived at work on the following Monday morning (3rd July), he had received an email from Domicilium (the company who is regulating and managing the .im domain on behalf of the Government). The email requested that he click on a link to confirm the registration. Mr. [Domnoob] duly did so and at that stage, all of the domains that we had expressed an interest in were still in this firm's shopping basket.

In accordance with the laws and precedents regarding ownership of real-world ('real estate') or virtual ('domain names') property, I did complete registration and payment for the available name before you. In so doing, I became the legal & rightful owner of this domain name.

Contrary to your claim, placing the domain in your shopping cart by no means makes that domain your property, nor does it reserve the domain from registration by a third party. It is simply one step, in a multi-step process that is followed to secure any domain name. I can find no legal statute or precedent (re: IM Rules & Regulations, Domain Name Policy in General as defined by verisign, this and that...).

4. On 4th July, Mr. [Domnoob] attempted to pay for the domains using a credit card. For some reason, the payment procedure failed. At this juncture, Mr. [Domnoob] contacted Domicilium and asked if they could invoice the firm for the various domains.

Mr. [Domnoob] was subsequently advised by Domicilium that as he did not complete the payment within one hour after commencing, the domains once again became available, notwithstanding that we had expressed an interest in the domains and contacted Domicilium with a view to arranging payment for them. Though I agree there was no 'negligence' on your part, I fail to understand how this matter concerns me. There are clearly defined guidelines regarding shopping carts, guidelines obviously known to you as you did repeat them in this correspondence. As you did not pay with the hour, your domain became available.

Should this matter have been a technical issue at Domicilium then I would suggest taking it up with them for I am not an offending or even participating party in this dispute; that said: from the looks of it, this was not a technical issue but simply a matter of competition to a highly touted name. Domicilium acted according to rules, and released the name to the general public after 1 hour. It was at this time that I picked up the name and completed registration.

Surely you are not implying somehow responsible for the premature release of the name? Furthermore, is it your esteemed opinion that you should be governed by rules different than those of the domain community at large?.

6. We understand that the nameserver that Mr. [Me] is registered under is what is known as a domain parking site where people store unwanted domains to sell them on later. Your description of domain parking as ... is wholly mistaken. Domain Parking is a means of asset monetization.

I am paid per-click on said ads. Furthermore, there is a link to contact me for those who are interested in bidding for the domain name. That said, it is by no means an 'unwanted domain', but rather a part of an overall business strategy that includes income from both targetted advertising as well as the outright sale of domain-name ownership.

7. We note that at paragraph 3 (A) (i) (a) of the IM Dispute Resolution Procedure, it states that "a non-exhaustive list of factors which may be evidence that the domain name is an abusive registration is ... circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or otherwise acquired the domain name primarily for the purposes of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly associated with acquiring or using the domain name". As indicated previously, we (always use we when possible) did not register the domain for primary purpose of selling. As indicated above, we are involved in advertising, development and brokerage of virtual real-estate. Furthermore, we have solicited no party for purposes of selling, renting or otherwise transferring; on the contrary - you sought us out.

8. It is absurd that the domain name is registered to someone in the United States who, in all likelihood, has no connection with the Isle of Man or more importantly, the law or the provision of legal services on the Island. It is clear that the Respondent has no other interest in the domain name except to make a profit. We hold, develop & host Internet properties worldwide. In developing such diverse Internet properties we seek to eliminate risk through the act of diversification. Our interest in .im properties is directly related to our aim to offer targetted advertising to users who are residents, visitors or otherwise have interests within the Isle of Man.

9. The IM Rules at paragraph 3.2 states that "We (Domicilium) will accept applications which comply with the Rules and register domain names on a first come first served basis." In this case, it was only an error at the payment stage that caused the domain names to be lost. To all intents and purposes, this firm was the first to attempt to register the domain name. What you fail to recognize is that you did not complete the application. In so doing, the name was released for registration by the next party. As I stated previously, this does not seem to be an error at the payment phase, but rather that when you tried to pay, the domain had already been taken. In any case, that is a matter between you and Domicilium and has no bearings on this case whatsoever.

10. In the circumstances, we suggest that the domain name is transferred to this firm as the names were in our shopping basket and would have been paid for and registered had there not been a problem with the payment stage. Until you COMPLETE an application in line with guidelines AND make payment in full for a property you are no more (and no less) the owner of the respective .IM domain than anyone within the public domain.

We look forward to hearing from you on this matter. I would reply in this type of fashion (As pissed red as you are, and you have every right to be) and make sure they know you are forwarding a carbon-copy (I would email and send via registered mail so they know you are serious, and let them know you are sending that way) to Domicilium and the NIC site [/QUOTE] Don't even think about selling it. It is not contrary to the law of the .IM Registration but it could be construed as such (re: that point about selling). Don't play with fire, don't give them any ammunition. An issue that you may have is that they are filing this in the Isle of Man. Getting there is expensive and you could lose simply due to absentia. That's why I believe you should be corresponding strongly NOW, to both Domicilium & the registrar (who may end up dismissing it outright or being your best ally)..

Comment #20

Commenting on Engineer's suggestions:.

Under paragraph 4., I would not concede that they (the lawyers) were not negligent. That concession is superfluous, as it won't help and in fact might hurt.

Remind them (the lawyers) that it's a generic term that they have no special rights to.

Remind them that the rule is "first to register", not "first to put in cart".

Putting in cart expressed at most an initial interest. Anyone can show interest or initial interest.

Failure to proceed to check out means abandonment, simple and clear as that.

Bottomline: No valid claim whatsoever...

Comment #21

Personally I think they suck...And I hope you get the opportunity to sit and laugh in thier faces....When the big boys come out and snare thier nostrils at you...Just remember....They have more money than you in most cases...And they can be sued.Best of luck with this briman,I hope you not only win this...i hope you set an example for those who think they will just file on people for no good reason...

Comment #22

Try to sell it at a real high price to the lawyers firm telling them if they're seriously interested to buy it off of you. The domain is your own property and there's nothing there that indicates that it is or once was their property, let alone their trademark, etc...

Comment #23

Ahem,.

You are wrong. Laywers don't sit there and surf sites or whois sites searching for premium domain names. They hire techs for that. Their tech was just not as smart / fast as the players on this forum therefore they lost out, shopping cart or not.

If they wanted, they could bring nic.im into the picture and can question their shopping cart practices. If one domain is added to the shopping cart, there should be a basic LOCK on that nic.im site for "x" days allowing the shopper to either checkout or move out. If they do not register is the set amount of time, they lose the cart to another buyer.

They could create this practice based on actual registered members who've signed up and added items to their cart. Regular guests that add names to their carts do not apply.

Anyways, I'm off topic, but regardless, the domain name in question does not belong to the people starting this mess, and they will have to PAY FOR IT or move on.

Don't give up. It's your name, your property but there is always that saying, "Use best judgement". Do what's best for you in the most professional way possible...

Comment #24

It's a 1 hour hold as far as I can see, that's long enough as far as I am concerned, especially during the highly competitive, highly saturated initial registration week. Come to think of it, 1 hour is LONGER THAN WHAT YOU GET FOR .COM, .NET and other popular TLDs. As far as I know, there is no way for GoDaddy to put a 'hold' on a given domain name (i.e. with the organization that governs the registration of .net/.com/.org or other TLD names) so even if you checkout IMMEDIATELY, if somebody is registering the same name at 1&1 and hits SUBMIT before you, the domain is theirs! You cannot have a situation where domains are being put on a 'hold' status w/i the central registry by third-party registrars.

I think the shopping cart issue is moot. If one wants to talk about 'fairness' in shopping carts/registration they are talking about somehow equalizing a near infinite set of variables..

1. Register 1's cart has 4 steps, Register 2's has 2, Register 1 has a quick cart, Register 2's lags forever between steps, Register 1 makes you enter a myriad of information, Register 2 only asks for the bare essentials for registration... Then Register 1 immediately registers completed forms, while it could be that Register 2 performs registrations as a 'batch process', as in: they process their entire queue at given intervals throughout the day. And that's just the tip of the iceberg (i.e. what of user Internet connection speeds, geographical location, ISP issues, etc.).

It is all of no circumstance for basic reasons of:.

1. ALL USERS HAVE THE VERY SAME OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO THEM.

2. ALL USERS ARE GOVERNED BY THE SAME RULES within the confines of the registering company as well as those rules governing the registration, ownership & transfer of .IM names.

3. There was no stated (as far as I know) rule, regulation or stipulation that stated a saved shopping cart somehow put a 'hold' on domain names. Taking this a step further, there is no overwhelming precedent that likens an e-shopping cart to a completed transaction quite the contrary, in my opinion... Especially for Domain Names where often multiple third party registrars are interacting with a single respective central registry who does not recognize a 'hold' status.

It's first come first serve OR in reality of domains: First Connect to Central Governing Registrar - First Serve, When I say 'Central Governing Registrar, I mean the company that actually governs the TLD vs. the company you interact with which is a middle-man... Slightly off topic, but I was just thinking: Look at the business of expired domains with GoDaddy backorders, Enom's Club Drop and others. You have near NO CHANCE of securing 'just about to expire' names for these companies utilize their MASSIVE RESOURCES to HAMMER the registrar for 'first dibbs' on expired domains. Ya, you can hit SUBMIT the second the name goes public, but these companies have servers geographically nearer (&/or otherwise less hops/route) to & running at greater speeds than you, and they are making 200 requests a minute before the domain expires, overloading the queue - by the time the registrar is at request 199, the domain expires and it's theirs (your 1 request is 201).

Bottom Line: the first successful request and PAYMENT IN FULL wins, PERIOD. The examples/precedents within the industry are absolutely overwhelming (in your favour).

[QUOTE=psalzmann].

If they do not register is the set amount of time, they lose the cart to another buyer..

They could create this practice based on actual registered members who've signed up and added items to their cart. Regular guests that add names to their carts do not apply..

[/QUPTE].

Losing the cart to ANOTHER BUYER would require a rather complex, if not wholly unfair (contrary to competitive spirit) process. What if there are multiple registrars (I don't know about .IM but everyone and their dog is offering registration for a variety TLDs). If at Register 1, a cart runs out, does it automatically go to another registered buyer at Register 1? What of Register 2 and their clientele? I would advise not to offer to sell. They could use this as ammunition, stating that you contravened the rule regarding 'registration for primary purpose of selling...at higher cost than registered...' - it's a weak argument but I'd rather leave 'em naked, with nothing, as it stands now...

Comment #25

Do not under any circumstances offer to sell them the name before a decision is made. that act alone can be enough to give them the benefit of paragraph 7.

As NP41215 says, don't concede they weren't negligent. They were. If they assigned the job of registering an important name to someone withhout the means, knowledge, and funds to do so the firm was negligent in management. If the employee failed to complete the project by checking out and paying, they neglected to do their job.

There have been some other cases where names were withdrawn by IOM after registration "in the interest of the government". They may have a slight case here, if they made that statement, but they didn't even seem to do that as a point.

IOM has not residency or nexus requirement for .im domains, so the statement that a foreign person has less rights should not hold up, and you should make that point very clear in your response. Note the following in their own rules Good luck...

Comment #26

Wow, and when I say wow, I mean WOW!!! My cup runneth over with solid, professional advice from a lot of incredible NP members! I will DEFINITELY pick these posts apart and use a great deal of this thread to build my response and BLOW THEM AWAY!!!.

Namepros is the greatest community on the net! I feel privileged to have this kind of resource literally at my fingertips! Thank you SO MUCH fellas. I couldn't have asked for better feedback! 's..

Comment #27

Remember do NOT offer the domain for sale!.

And do not admit they have not been negligent since they where negligent.

Good luck, i'm quite curious what their next correspondence is going to be.

And why not ask John Berryhill what you could do and how to respond.

I'm sure he loves a case like this and to piledrive them so to speak..

A letterhead from John Berryhill alone would have them scared shittless John Berryhill..

Comment #28

I'm a little concerned over the definitions used for parking pages. It is a small point, but it seems that the only use being suggested for parking pages is to get the advertising money and advertise the site for sale.

If the definition could include the idea that parking pages are also used to monetize traffic prior to development it might help to reduce their implied suggestion that you were only out to sell / profit unfairly from the use of the name.

I'm not suggesting you say you were going to develop a site (unless you were), but to add the idea that you might.

Mike..

Comment #29

Again, for the value of the domain, contact a domain lawyer, there are several around here that are very capable. But as others have said, DO NOT offer the domain for sale. If you do decide to proceed without a lawyer, jsut address teh issues at hand, DO NOT add information that is not needed. DO NOT try to outsmart the lawyers. Keep it simple and straigh forward adn address the issues presented to you...

Comment #30

There is some good advice here. But let me say these lawyers won't go away quietly. They never do. My advice is to get jberryhill in on this. It should be an easy win for him. However after the UDRP win you may want to sell them the domain.

They want it. Find a way to make both parties happy and move on. They really can make you miserable and as stated...if they file suit in the Isle of Man...you are screwed. Most likely they know this too. Will spending $10k to keep this name be worth it? Doubtful.

I don't see any alternative for you but to get a lawyer...

Comment #31

Well, there is nothing to prevent the domain owner/registrant from filing suit in his local U.S. District Court or local State Court against the other side, and then move to have the other side's case transferred and consolidated locally.

Where a suit is filed initially by one of the parties does not have to be where it must be litigated or adjudicated finally...

Comment #32

Thanks everyone! Before I received the complaint, I had already clipped some code from different places and was trying to assemble a mini-site for IOM lawyers/law firms to advertise on, which I think would be a good use for the name. Like everyone else here, I am always open to receiving offers for my domains, but virtually all of my reg's are based on development ideas I've had. I have snippets of HTML, CSS, and Javascript everywhere on my computer for this and many other domains. It's slow-going most of the time, since I am just now getting the hang of simple HTML.

I will not be offering the name for sale other than keeping it parked at Sedo while I continue to work on the website. Of course, I won't be putting up a website until the complaint is dismissed, even though development was my original plan for the domain. I'm sure that going live with a website now would seem like an attempt to feign good faith after the fact.

I will definitely try to show that they were negligent in trying to acquire the domain. It is obvious from their complaint that they didn't know what they were doing. I will also make it a point to demonstrate that parking a page is simply a means to monetize it while development is going on. I don't feel like there is anything wrong with that. It's like renting your retirement home until you can find the time and money to renovate it properly.

As for hiring a lawyer, I simply can't afford one right now. So unless I am forced into a corner and have to go to the credit cards, I won't be seeking legal council (unless it's free ).

Thanks everyone for all the advice!!! Most of it is great and I will keep coming back to this thread as I write my response. I will post it here for everyone's review before I send it to them. I don't want to make any mistakes!..

Comment #33

Also for them to win a UDRP they must prove 3 things. You make damn sure to address each of these.

1. The complaintant does not have a TM for lawyer which is a generic term used in the generic sense.

2. That you have legitmate use for the domain.

3. Complaintant has not shown bad-faith registration and that you have shown your intentions for the domain.

You should honestly work very hard on those 3 points and hitting them home. Also make sure to outline what you feel is reverse-hijacking on their part. They as lawyers are fully aware they do not have a TM for the term lawyer and it's so obvious that the panel can only judge this to be an attempted reverse hijack.

You really need to put these idiots in their place.

I still recommend that you at least contact jberryhill. He might be more reasonable about the price than you think. Heck maybe he would swap for free advertising. :-)..

Comment #34

"will not be offering the name for sale other than keeping it parked at Sedo".

So you are offering it for sale... could go along the lines of bad faith... but they still need to prove the other two items for UDRP...

Comment #35

Yeah...and I can't see them even close to saying they own a TM for the term lawyer. On that alone this case should be won by you. I just hope you get an intelligent panelist that sees this for what it truely is and slaps this tard with a reverse hijack label...

Comment #36

Meanwhile, real saddle tramps (most notably Kenyatech), are allowed by the powers that be to scan almost everyone's Whois searches, as well as raid everyone's shopping carts (if you do not purchase the domain you were thinking of buying during your ORIGINAL session). And the irony continues.

It's especially twisted in this case, since the other guys are trying to label YOU as a Kenyatech-style agent. Now that's just plain crazy!..

Comment #37

It should not be seen as unfair to sell or profit unless it's at the expense of the other party (except under communism). To "profit unfairly", it should have to be proven that an attempt was made to profit from the person filing the claim, otherwise any amount of profit is "fair" in a free market world. to prove unfairly profiting would require that either the claimant had a trademark that was being infringed upon, which the don't; or that the registrant tried to profit from selling it to the claimant in an extortion sense, which also doesn't seem to be the case.

The only way I can see losing this case is if the registry assigns it to the government and they use section 5.2 of their rules, which they have done in some other cases by revoking a name once registered. however, if they did this, the claimant shouldn't get it, it should be reserved by the government for their use. It also sounds like that procedure can only take place within the first couple days of registration. See other threads on NP for stories of names that were confirmed registered and then revoked...

Comment #38

It matters little if you sue them. The way the big guys often win is not through court but through endless process, aka 'by keeping you in court'. They leave your lawyers claims unanswered or wait for the last warning (knowing that you are paying per every fax, phone-call, and every iota of a second your lawyer BREATHES!), they make every meeting, phone-call, statement of fact, and especially ANYTHING involving a court-room (where your lawyers fees go up signifigantly, every lawyer I've ever met or dealt with has charged utterly impossible 'court-room hours') take as long as humanly possible, insisting on taking advantage of every technicality, right or procedure allowable under the law. In short: they 'dry you out through sustainment of dispute'.

Don't be discouraged by this (even though I often am). Handled correctly, through getting the right parties on your side (the agency governing the name etc.) could nip this in the bud.

Some other pieces of advice I've garnered:.

- When making your case to Domicilium (sp?) use THE PHONE over email. Make personal connections & lasting rapport. Make them feel & know how absurd this matter is. Too often we reach for email but it has it's downsides, esp. in charged matters such as this (email is tonless, voiceless... and may be read by someone at any given point of the day, maybe after dealing with 250 emails from other disgruntled registerers (be they justified or not)).

- RECORD RECORD RECORD. Record every email and every conversation (you can get suction cup phone records at Radio Shack, at least you used to be able to). Make sure you use a disclaimer or some type of notification that is heard on the recording for in some juristictions/conflict-types you do need to disclose this fact to the party being recorded, in any case: you don't want them wasting time with this as a possible cause for prolonging this uncomforting matter (We hereby give full disclosure of recording. All correspondence past, present and future regarding the dispute for x.com; be they between the conflicting parties (you and them) or otherwise, shall herein be recorded for use in, but in no way limited by, resolving the matter, as evidence in court or any medium of binding arbitration, internal review. Respective dislosure shall remain an indefinite blanket-clause with it's stipulations & understandings continually binding, that is, without the repeated declaration of said disclosure. DO YOU UNDERSTAND AND AGREE?).

- Like others said: It is ABSOLUTELY CRITICAL. Remain cool, collected and professional. If they say idiot, say 'I formally lodge my objection to this characteristic', if they say.......

- Don't procrastinate, talk to Domicilium ASAP, then start acting, communicating...

This need NOT be something that keeps you up at night, it's only business (they are going about it in a dirty, sly form, but it's still just...)..

Comment #39

These quotes could turn it into a no-win situation for both parties. The legal profession is possibly a regulated activity and as such the domain could arguably be pulled even after it is granted (the first quote).

Either way, this is a very tricky case but they seem to be trying to steamroller you. Get legal advice on this or do deal.

Regards...jmcc..

Comment #40

You mostly had good points in your post but I have to think they want this domain asap. It's not in their best interest to delay the process. Btw...if it looks like you will lose the domain..make sure to get the domain banned in the search engines and blocklisted for spamming. :-).

Basically just throw hidden spammy p0rn text all over it. Also make sure to spam out from possible email addresses they would use. laywer.name@lawyer.im. Add them to every damn free mailing list you can. Yeah I am evil...don't F with me...

Comment #41

I am am with engineer & labrocca,.

Respond wisely, not offensive..

They are just aming on you.

IMO bottom line is, that all comes down to the domain worth for you..

If they really want the name, you may have a solution here (Win-Win)..

But this is the tricky level 2 or 3 of your trial.

BTW, the "spam" level is at 5 - lol.

Good Luck.

Keep us updated.

PS:.

DO NOT QUOTE THE DOMAIN NAME, or at least do it like like L A W E RIM..

You may not want them finding this thread in the SEs..

Comment #42

Thanks for the great advice guys!!! I am working on my response now. I will post it here once I'm finished. I only have 4 days left to submit it. I will also take Engineer's advice and place a phone call to Nic.im and Domicilium to further state my position on said complaint.

Namepros..

Comment #43

Okee dokee... here it is. Please give me your harshest criticism. I want to make sure I hit every point home so I don't lose my precious.

Please accept this response to the complaint made by _ _ _ _ _ _ (hereafter referred to as Complainant) regarding my registration of the lawyer.im domain name. Thank you for the opportunity to defend my position against this complaint.

Regarding items 1-4, 9 & 10 in said complaint;.

Contrary to Complainant's claim, placing a domain name in an internet shopping basket (also referred to as a "cart") by no means makes that party the registrant of said domain, nor does it protect said domain from registration by another party. It is simply one step, in a multi-step process that is followed to secure the registration of a domain name.

Complainant stated that, "the domain name was lost, even though there was no negligence on our part." I disagree with this statement. Complainant makes the assertion in their complaint that they left the domain in their shopping basket for approximately three (3) days without completing the payment necessary to complete the registration process. This is a clear example of their negligence in securing registration of the disputed domain. I can find no precedent that affirms a party's rights to a domain registration by the action of placing a domain name in a web site's shopping cart without later making payment for said registration. At best, placing a domain name in a website's cart signifies initial interest. Failure to proceed with checkout (payment) means abandonment of the registration. Furthermore, according to the Nic.im Terms and Conditions under Fees and Payment;.

4.2 we [Domicilium/Nic.im] do not have to start any process, including any change to the register, until we (not just your agent) have received (within any time limit) any fee for that action and any other fees that have not been paid for the domain name or things done with it  it is your duty to make sure that we are paid and that there is enough information with the payment to make sure that we know which domain name it relates to.

8.3 you should not rely on the registration or continued registration of the domain name until we confirm that any application you make has completed and you confirm that your correct name is recorded in the register for the domain name...

8.4 ...Your chosen domain name is not reserved prior to manual registration being completed and it is possible that the domain name could be registered to another registrant via the web site while your request is being manually processed.

In addition, the Nic.im site's IM Rules states under 1. Domain Name Definitions;.

1.3 When an application for registration of a domain name is submitted to us by you, or on your behalf, you are an Applicant. If your application is successful your domain name will be registered by us and you will be the Registrant.

In simplified terms, the first successful request and payment in full gets the registration, barring an error on the part of the registrar, which did not occur. Therefore, in accordance with the laws and precedents regarding application/ownership of domain name registrations, and the rules set forth by the terms and conditions of Domicilium/Nic.im, I did properly complete application, payment and registration of the disputed domain name prior to Complainant. In so doing, I became the legal & rightful registrant of the disputed domain name.

Regarding item 5;.

I am the registrant of the disputed domain name. This response contains advice from my counsel, and several of my advisors who are professionals in the field of domain investing, development and dispute resolution.

Regarding item 6;.

Complainant's understanding of domain parking is innaccurate. Domain Parking is a means of asset monetization. I control an asset (lawyer.im), and parking allows me to host targeted advertising at my domain while I am developing the code, doing research and generally preparing to host a website. While the domain is parked, I am paid per-click on said advertisements. This allows me to monetize a domain that would otherwise be unused (and therefore unprofitable) during the development phase.

Furthermore, domain parking is by no means a "site where people store unwanted domains to sell them on later", but rather a part of an overall fair-use business strategy that includes future development of domains.

Regarding item 7;.

Complainant has suggested that this is an abusive registration. This is an unwarranted accusation. I have not acquired the domain name for the purpose of selling or renting it to the Complainant or their competitor(s). I have not solicited this domain for sale to anyone other than the general statement on the Sedo parking page which states, "This domain MAY be for sale by it's owner!" which is on virtually every Sedo parked page. I assure you that the disputed domain was bought with the intention of future development. I already have snippets of code prepared for this purpose.

Regarding item 8;.

Complainant suggests that because I reside in the US that I have no right to the disputed domain. They go on to imply that I am not associated with the Isle of Man or the field of law and that is evidence of a desire to profit unfairly from said domain. I disagree with this suggestion. According to the IM Rules, Section 1. Domain Name Definitions;.

3.2 We [Domicilium/Nic.im] will accept applications which comply with the Rules and register domain names on a first come first served basis. This means that, except where set out in the Rules, we will not vet your application to:.

" restrict who may apply for and register domain names; or.

" restrict which domain names may be held by you; or.

" restrict the number of domain names which may be held by you.

The internet is free of geographical boundaries. Anyone, anywhere has the capability to develop a website that can be utilized by individuals worldwide. My development plans for the domain are within the category of fair use, and since there are no restrictions to who may register a .im domain, there is no reason that I can't make a useful website for the citizens of the Isle of Man (or anywhere for that matter).

In closing, let me add that I believe this complaint is a bad faith attempt at reverse domain name hijacking. Complainant obviously has no rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the domain name, even though, under the IM DRP, the Complainant IS REQUIRED TO PROVE to the Designated Official that both of the following two elements are present on the balance of probabilities:.

1. The Complainant has rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the domain name;.

AND.

2. The domain, in the hands of the Respondent, is an abusive registration.

The disputed domain, lawyer.im is clearly generic. NO ATTEMPT was made by Complainant to provide evidence that they have rights to an identical or similar name or mark. This alone should render this complaint as not within the scope of paragraph two (2) of the IM DRP and therefore render it invalid.

Items 1-4 & 8-10 of the complaint are issues that should be directed as concerns to the registrar. Complainant doesn't seem to agree with the process used by Nic.im for processing domain registrations. I am of course, not responsible for the way their shopping cart functions and there is no way I could have known that Complainant had an interest in registering the disputed domain around the time that I did.

In my opinion, only item 7 is considered a "cause for complaint" under the IM DRP, although I feel, as I've outlined above, that their complaint has not been proven sufficiently. According to overwhelming precedents set by other domain disputes, it should not be seen as unfair to sell or profit unless it's at the expense of another party and/or their respective mark. I am clearly not making an attempt to extort money from or steal profit from Complainant, therefore any amount of profit I can produce from this generic domain name through development, parking or even resell, is "fair" in a free market world. Complainant has provided no evidence to their accusation that the disputed domain is an abusive registration.

If you should wish to contact me by email, blah blah blah...

No legal proceedings have been commenced or terminated in connection with lawyer.im, which is the subject of the complaint.

The information contained in this response is, to the best of the Respondent's knowledge, true and complete and the matters stated in this response comply with the IM DRP and applicable law.

Thank you and kind regards,.

Your worst nightmare..

Comment #44

Well done..

I don't think these crooks really have a case. Quite honestly I would be surprised if the NIC did anything other than rule in your favor. If they didn't it would send a negative signal to .im registrants. It would mean your name can be taken away from you just because claimant is more powerful than you are.

BTW the Manx speak British English, I don't think lawyer is a common term there. They rather use words like barrister or sollicitor. Actually as an American you have a better justification for owning the name than they do.

They have been so negligent, still arrogant. It beats me.

To hell with the lawyers.

Good luck...

Comment #45

Best of luck.

I wouldn't worry about it because if by some madness the courts ruled against you, it would open up a whole can of worms.

It would mean I could stick a million .im domain names in a shopping cart then months/years later when you see someone else has created a profitable site from one of them... I could claim the domain is rightfully mine because I had it in my cart first - it just won't happen..

Comment #46

Good luck, you should definitely win the case, but stranger things have happened..

Comment #47

In ref to the shopping cart. I think most domainers will affirm that at certain registrars if you leave a domain in a cart it will definitely get regged by someone else. (most of the time the registrar).

Nice response...

Comment #48

Nice Briman but one thing does stick out: when you point out that issue 7 may be "cause of complaint". I would take that out and restructure it without admitting to any wrong doing. Though I understand what you are saying, these are lawyers and they will use it and run with it.

Also, you should also state that they do not have the TM for the individual term of "lawyer".

Nice write.....

Comment #49

Nice respons letter Briman!.

As DNQ pointed out you should restructure that part. Also if you're going to send out that email use :CC so that the lawyers get the message as well to show you know you're rights and know they are totally wrong..

My opinion though...

Or would this be counter productive by giving the lawyers insight of the process and time to prepare for sending a immediate response to that letter to the .IM registry?.

Just a thought and perhaps others could share their view on this...

Comment #50

You really need to add the fact you believe they are attempting a reverse hijack. Really hit this one home. As lawyers they are well aware they need to have a TM on the domain in order to win a UDRP. You feel this is a blantant attemtp to reverse hijack and you wish the panel to seriously consider labelling them so. You will seek further legal action against their firm if reverse hijacking is decided in this matter.

You really really really gotta smack these people if you want to shut them up forever. If you win this (which you should) that's great..but if you can get them labelled a reverse hijacker you shut them down completely. After they get labelled hijackers you can win in any US open court imho. They will know it and will have no choice but to offer you a buttload of money if they truely want it...

Comment #51

According to the IM DRP, they send out a CC to the Complainant when they send the response to the Designated Official, so I really don't have a choice in the matter.

DNQuest and Damion... points taken. I will edit and repost. I actually have mentioned that near the bottom of my response, but points taken on driving it home.

I would love for them to be found guilty of hijacking, but I'm not really sure I should piss them off by threatening a lawsuit. They most likely have more resources than I do when it comes to that. Wouldn't that be adding fuel to the fire? I'm already accusing them of hijacking... but threatening a lawsuit? Hmmmm, I'll have to think about that one.

Thank you so much for your comments Labrocca. You've been very helpful to me. I've added rep for you and everyone here. You've all helped me and some have helped me in a VERY big way (Engineer and others)! More comments are welcome. I will post my edits in a little while...

Comment #52

The accusation that you reside in the US and therefore have no right to the disputed domain is a total crock - they are positively encouraging it!.

"Domicilium, the Castletown-based internet service provider, will manage the rollout of the domain and believes it will be very attractive to users outside the Island, such as instant messaging sites, that want a catchy web address.

'It is our dream to have the world instant messaging built around .im domains. Potentially we have an audience of millions of people, all using something out of the Island" quote from John Allen finance director at Domicilium http://www.iomonline.co.im/ViewArtic...icleID=1603812.

L a w y e r .IM - get instant legal advice..

Comment #53

Awesome info! I have included a reference to this article in my 2nd draft.

Here it is again with the edited portions in red..

Please accept this response to the complaint made by _ _ _ _ _ _ (hereafter referred to as Complainant) regarding my registration of the lawyer.im domain name. Thank you for the opportunity to defend my position against this complaint.

Regarding items 1-4, 9 & 10 in said complaint;.

Contrary to Complainant's claim, placing a domain name in an internet shopping basket (also referred to as a "cart") by no means makes that party the registrant of said domain, nor does it protect said domain from registration by another party. It is simply one step, in a multi-step process that is followed to secure the registration of a domain name.

Complainant stated that, "the domain name was lost, even though there was no negligence on our part." I disagree with this statement. Complainant makes the assertion in their complaint that they left the domain in their shopping basket for approximately three (3) days without completing the payment necessary to complete the registration process. This is a clear example of their negligence in securing registration of the disputed domain. I can find no precedent that affirms a party's rights to a domain registration by the action of placing a domain name in a web site's shopping cart without later making payment for said registration. At best, placing a domain name in a website's cart signifies initial interest. Failure to proceed with checkout (payment) means abandonment of the registration. Furthermore, according to the Nic.im Terms and Conditions under Fees and Payment;.

4.2 we [Domicilium/Nic.im] do not have to start any process, including any change to the register, until we (not just your agent) have received (within any time limit) any fee for that action and any other fees that have not been paid for the domain name or things done with it  it is your duty to make sure that we are paid and that there is enough information with the payment to make sure that we know which domain name it relates to.

8.3 you should not rely on the registration or continued registration of the domain name until we confirm that any application you make has completed and you confirm that your correct name is recorded in the register for the domain name...

8.4 ...Your chosen domain name is not reserved prior to manual registration being completed and it is possible that the domain name could be registered to another registrant via the web site while your request is being manually processed.

In addition, the Nic.im site's IM Rules states under 1. Domain Name Definitions;.

1.3 When an application for registration of a domain name is submitted to us by you, or on your behalf, you are an Applicant. If your application is successful your domain name will be registered by us and you will be the Registrant.

In simplified terms, the first successful request and payment in full gets the registration, barring an error on the part of the registrar, which did not occur. Therefore, in accordance with the laws and precedents regarding application/ownership of domain name registrations, and the rules set forth by the terms and conditions of Domicilium/Nic.im, I did properly complete application, payment and registration of the disputed domain name prior to Complainant. In so doing, I became the legal & rightful registrant of the disputed domain name.

Regarding item 5;.

I am the registrant of the disputed domain name. This response contains advice from my counsel, and several of my advisors who are professionals in the field of domain investing, development and dispute resolution.

Regarding item 6;.

Complainant's understanding of domain parking is inaccurate. Domain Parking is a means of asset monetization. I control an asset (lawyer.im), and parking allows me to host targeted advertising at my domain while I am developing the code, doing research and generally preparing to host a website. While the domain is parked, I am paid per-click on said advertisements. This allows me to monetize a domain that would otherwise be unused (and therefore unprofitable) during the development phase.

Furthermore, domain parking is by no means a "site where people store unwanted domains to sell them on later", but rather a part of an overall fair-use business strategy that includes future development of domains.

Regarding item 7;.

Complainant has suggested that this is an abusive registration. This is an unwarranted accusation. I have not acquired the domain name for the purpose of selling or renting it to the Complainant or their competitor(s). I have not solicited this domain for sale to anyone other than the general statement on the Sedo parking page which states, "This domain MAY be for sale by it's owner!" which is on virtually every Sedo parked page. I assure you that the disputed domain was bought with the intention of future development. I already have snippets of code prepared for this purpose.

According to overwhelming precedents set by other domain disputes, it should not be seen as unfair to sell or profit unless it's at the expense of another party and/or their respective mark. I am clearly not making an attempt to extort money from or steal profit from Complainant, therefore any amount of profit I can produce from this generic domain name through development, parking or even resell, is "fair" in a free market world. Complainant has provided no evidence to their accusation that the disputed domain is an abusive registration.

Regarding item 8;.

Complainant suggests that because I reside in the US that I have no right to the disputed domain. They go on to imply that I am not associated with the Isle of Man or the field of law and that is evidence of a desire to profit unfairly from said domain. I disagree with this suggestion. According to the IM Rules, Section 1. Domain Name Definitions;.

3.2 We [Domicilium/Nic.im] will accept applications which comply with the Rules and register domain names on a first come first served basis. This means that, except where set out in the Rules, we will not vet your application to:.

" restrict who may apply for and register domain names; or.

" restrict which domain names may be held by you; or.

" restrict the number of domain names which may be held by you. In fact, according to statements made by a representative of Domicilium in this Isle of Man Today article, http://www.iomonline.co.im/ViewArtic...icleID=1603812 Domicilium is actively promoting registration by parties outside the island.

The internet is free of geographical boundaries. Anyone, anywhere has the capability to develop a website that can be utilized by individuals worldwide. My development plans for the domain are within the category of fair use, and since there are no restrictions to who may register a .im domain, there is no reason that I can't make a useful website for the citizens of the Isle of Man (or anywhere for that matter). The vast majority of the complaint (items 1-4 & 8-10) are issues that should be directed as concerns or questions to the registrar. Complainant doesn't seem to agree with the process used by Nic.im for processing domain registrations. I am of course, not responsible for the way internet shopping carts function and there is no way I could have known that Complainant had an interest in registering the disputed domain around the time that I did.

Under the IM DRP, only item 7 of the complaint falls under the designation of a "cause for complaint", although I feel as I've outlined above, that this section of said complaint does not provide evidence of bad faith registration. Furthermore, let me add that I believe this complaint, in it's entirety, to be a bad faith attempt at reverse domain name hijacking.

As lawyers, Complainant should be well aware that they must have a trademark, service mark or business name that is similar to the domain in question in order to win a domain DRP.

The disputed domain, lawyer.im is clearly generic.

Complainant obviously has no rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the disputed domain name, even though, under the IM DRP, the Complainant IS REQUIRED TO PROVE to the Designated Official that both of the following two elements are present on the balance of probabilities:.

The domain, in the hands of the Respondent, is an abusive registration;.

AND;.

The Complainant has rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the domain name in question.

NO ATTEMPT was made by Complainant to provide evidence that they have rights to the term "lawyer", "lawyer.im", or any similar term that could be confused with their mark. This alone should render this complaint as not within the scope of paragraph two (2) of the IM DRP and therefore render it invalid according to section 15(D). I feel that, at the minimum, this is a blatant attempt to bully me into transferring my domain registration to Complainant and wish the Designated Official to consider dismissing this complaint as a frivolous attempt at reverse domain name hijacking.

If you should wish to contact me by email blah blah blah.....

Comment #54

<Drive by posting>.

Don't say you were advised by counsel unless you were; equal footing still matters in arbitration forums from what I can tell.

Good luck with all of this, although I can't begin to stress enough that if you want this enough to keep it, you should seek out competent counsel of the professional kind.

</Drive by>.

-Allan..

Comment #55

Excellent. This thread is exactly why Namepros does have imho the best advice for domainers with legal issues.

Great job sir and I hope you keep us updated...

Comment #56

The situation can be much worse in some cases. Such as a registrar, or some third party in collusion, front-running the domainer's registration order...

Comment #57

Thanks guys!!! I can honestly say that my response wouldn't be near as good without all the good advice I culled from this thread! I feel encouraged! I will be sending this today, so any further comments will be much appreciated! I've contacted John Berryhill. I am hoping he will give me some advice before I mail my response. Could you explain the equal footing statement a little further? I've Googled it, but all I could find were examples concerning racial discrimination and disabilities. Thanks Allen!..

Comment #58

I just did a fast read through and it looks really good. Good Luck..

Comment #59

Thanks Philip, I appreciate all the advice and kind comments you've given me!..

Comment #60

Brian, nice job. Best of luck with your case, looks like you will be comming out on top!..

Comment #61

Thanks Bill! It means a lot coming from you!.

BTW, I contacted J. Berryhill and asked if I could send him the complaint and my response. He said yes, so I sent him both today. I'm really pushing the deadline by waiting for his opinion but I'm sure it will be worth it...

Comment #62

Nice letter mate.

They stand no chance imo..

Comment #63

I got comments from Mr. Berryhill this morning, edited my response based on his advice and I sent it off just now.

I'll keep you updated! Thanks again everyone!!! Rep has been left!..

Comment #64

Would it be possible to know what the Almighty JBH said?..

Comment #65

Well, he chastised me for bothering him with last-minute emergencies and told me not to do so in the future. He was still kind enough to mark up quite a few portions of my response (which he didn't have to do) and I followed about 98% of his advice.

One thing he said made me smile, "They have to prove rights in the mark "lawyer". They have failed to do so, and indeed cannot do so, since lawyer is a generic word for what they do. They are lawyers, and have no exclusive right to the word "lawyer". Most of the rest of your comments are excess verbiage.".

That pretty much confirmed to me what we all think about their complaint. It's pure crap...

Comment #66

LOL, I will agree with him on that, but sometimes, pounding something into someones brain can be fun when you are 100% correct...

Comment #67

Some countries have very different rules about trade marks specific to their country codes. For example, I bought gamble.lv, but a week later was notified that I could not register it because of an internal TM issue. I still haven't received a good explanation for it. Not saying you will have a problem...just pointing out what happened to me.

Here's the short notice I received:.

This is the log associated to your ordered domain:.

This ordered domain has been closed.

Details.

Date 11/08/2006 16:32, Status Finished Agent auto.

Reason Restricted by the Registry Comment Trademark registered in the Patent Office.

The close has been justified by the following log.

ID 3434114 Date 11/08/2006 16:32.

Message The registration of the domain gamble.lv failed; Trademark on this name..

Comment #68

All I can say is is hard luck on them They have no chance of getting it and if they take if further counterclaim..

Comment #69

An appeal on their DRP decision is 500 pounds. I would seriously consider paying it and hiring an attorney if I lost...

Comment #70

Here's the "Designated Official" super-speedy decision. You can read the entire thing or just skip to hte part in red. I am thoroughly disgusted. Dispute Resolution.

Complainant: Dickinson Cruickshank.

Registrant: Wanda Jackson (it's my wife's domain, BTW).

Domain Names:.

LAWYER.IM.

Audit Trail Summary.

Lawyer.im.

- Dickinson Cruickshank commenced the order for lawyer.im at 00:15 on the 1/7/2006 id 65399;.

- As this order was not finalized within the initial protection period the domain name lawyer.im was released back to the pool at 1/7/2006 2:20. These are the events labelled as Domain Abandonment..

- During this period it can be seen that another registrant was also interested in the domain name lawyer.im but for whatever reason did not complete the transaction even though they had got to order finalization..

- At 14:33 on the 4/7/2006 DC attempted to pay for the domain names previously identified and for whatever reason this was abandoned at 16:23. During this time Domicilium received an email identifying problems experienced during the payment process and the account was reset and new username and password details supplied, at the same time it was made clear to DC that the domain name law.im had gone. For whatever reasons DC could still not log in to the system Designated Official Decision.

There are five main points raised as grounds for a Dispute.

That the Complainant is entitled to the domain as their registration was prior to that of the Registrant. (Point 4).

The automated process ensures that domains are registered fairly on a first come first served basis. A mechanism is inbuilt to allow time to complete a registration and payment.

Analysis of the audit trail of activity involved with this domain name, described above, has revealed that the complainant did not register the domain against the company as they failed to complete the process within the time allocated, and took 4 days to attempt to complete the transaction.

During that period the domain was legitimately registered by the registrant.

Expressing an interest in the domain name by carrying out an availability check does not constitute a valid registration. Using the automated system, registration of domain names are only completed when a domain name registration is confirmed by the registrant, payment details submitted and payment confirmation is received.

Clause 8.3 of the .im Terms and Conditions states you should not rely on the registration or continued registration of the domain name until we confirm that any application you make has completed and you confirm that your correct name is recorded in the register for the domain name. At no point has nic.im confirmed the registration the domain name to DC and to the contrary have only informed DC of the unavailability of the requested Domain Name.

2 That there was a problem with the payment system which prevented DC from completing the registration. (Point 4).

The complainant did not complete the registration process within the time allowed and the domain was successfully and legally registered by the Registrant.

An attempt to pay for the domain names was made on 4th July 2006 but the payment was declined as the domain was no longer available. The system had no error or problem, and has been found to perform as designed.

The failure of the nic.im payment system led to the loss of domains (Point 9).

The web registration system has been found to be functioning as designed. From all of the 2500+ registrations since the 1st of July only one report of a system error has been made and this via this DPR.

It has been found that the Domicilium operated system has had no fault which has lead to the loss of domain name registrations.

The registrant was the first to complete a valid registration process for the domain name. DC understands that the domain name is parked on a site used explicitly for the selling of unwanted domains (Point 6).

The domain name has been registered with a site that is listing the domain name for sale. The minimum amount requested for consideration is 115. It is therefore concluded that the Domain Name registration is subject to a decision under section 3 (A) (i) (a) of the DRP and that the Domain Name Registration is an abusive registration.

Designated Official Decision: Dated 24-08-2006.

The complainant did not successfully complete the registration process for the Domain Name.

The Registrant successfully completed the registration process..

It is concluded that the Registrant acquired the domain name with the intention of selling on the domain by registering the name with a Domain Name listing site and advertising this for sale, thereby restricting the legitimate use of the domain by the Complainant.

In accordance with section 3 (A) (i) (a) of the DRP, the registration of the Domain Name will be offered to the Complainant. The complaint is Upheld.

An appeal of this decision may be launched in accordance with the DRP. Any Appeal must be lodged within 10 days of this decision..

Comment #71

What does "rep" mean? I've seen "rep" and "reps" used frequently. Also, how does one add "rep" to another and what results after that. Thanks...

Comment #72

It means that the "Designated Official, 1) Didn't even look at my response. 2) Slightly glanced at my response. 3) Didn't receive my response. 4) Didn't read the IM DRP. 5) Is being paid off. 6) Is being paid or controlled by someone who's been paid off.

8) OR a supersize combo of several of the above!.

I am so pissed right now. I either have to retain a lawyer or pay almost $1000 to appeal through Domicilium (within 10 days!!!!) If I decide to do the latter, the appeal will be decided upon by the same "official" that decided this dispute!..

Comment #73

This really sucks. Legalized theft if you ask me. You can win this, but it will cost you more than the name is worth. I feel for you...

Comment #74

Thanks Gene. I feel like this new precedent they've set for themselves should show how Nic.im/Domicilium will handle disputes in the future. If you park it, you lose it. If you're the little guy, you lose it.

It only takes a quick reading of their decision to see how unprofessional and inexperienced they are. They totally ignored my response. I've lost my faith in .im domains. If our hold on these names is this fragile, then they are virtually worthless. You can bet your ass I will be spreading the word about that...

Comment #75

I think you should make this situation as public as possible. Put the heat on them. Make it common knowledge that they are entirely incompetent at best, outright theives at worst...

Comment #76

As shown by highlighted portions above, the decision agreed with virtually all of the unassailable arguments had I suggested earlier (see http://www.namepros.com/1416419-post24.html ), except my conclusion that registrant wins.

As a result, the decision contained many important findings that are in favor of registrant Wanda Jackson.

Of course, one can see the glass as half full or half empty. The important findings which predominantly favor Wanda Jackson suggest it is much more than half full, on appeal. Good luck!..

Comment #77

Briman, I am sorry about this. To be objective, I see why they would come to that conclusion, as weak as it may be. I would contact John Berryhill and let him handle this. But at this point, it is an upward battle and making it public may help you in your favor.

I am at a computer that won't let me view a PDF (in the library at the moment), but I will read the rules and see if I can find any help for you in hte next day or so. This is a crock. You should have never lost the complaint, but if anything, the domain should be released to the public and not the complainant.

I'll get back to you as soon as I get something...

Comment #78

I appreciate it Philip! I agree that the domain is not rightfully theirs, even if I reg'd in bad-faith (which I did not!).

Does anyone know if I can get ICANN involved in this?..

Comment #79

It is a ridiculous decision that does not adhere to their own rules.

Also I did not see that a there is a charge to file a complaint but that there is one of 500 pounds to appeal? Did I miss the cost of filing a complaint? I read it three times...

Comment #80

So, this mean's if we see a .IM domain for sale on the open market and want that domain, we could file a complaint on the grounds of this ruleing "Selling a .im domain is considered abusive" and get the domain.

This is a very bad precedent to set for future complaints over the sale of IM domains.

So, do you have any will to appeal the discission? How do you plan to over come listing the domain for sale on sedo?.

.: sidenote.

How-ever it could cut down on the domainers if this was introduced in the .com/.net/.org markets...

Comment #81

Have you thought about going to the local isle of man press with this information? Might be bad press for both of them...

Comment #82

They ripped attorney.im from me, four days after I purchased it. I know how you feel. Did they at least give you your money back?..

Comment #83

I have an idea. Most of you know me and would be willing to trust me. I would like to ask several people who have registered a .im to let me file a complaint against their name. All I will say is that I think there is an abusive registration because the name is for sale at Sedo and that I had interest in the name first. According to their new precedent, I should win the name every time.

Or, we could do the reverse, and people here with good NP rep/trader rating can file complaints against every one of the rest of my names. When you win the dispute, you can just transfer the name back to me.

Even better... let's do both at the same time. If you own a .im and are interested, please let me know...

Comment #84

So basically, if they weren't trying to buy it at the same time - the fact you have it listed at sedo wouldn't have mattered?.

Reading the letter they gave you shows you are favoured all the way, till it mentions sedo....Which, at that point is irrelevant as you are the registered owner and you can do with it what you want..

Selling at sedo isin't "bad faith". You bought it, you own it! You should be able to do with it as you please. Just because THEY want it...it becomes an issue that it's at sedo..

What happens if you put it in someone else's name and they put a site up on it? With you being the registered owner, is that allowed while it's in dispute?.

Will they allow you to change ownership of it at this point (not to the complainant) but to anyone else? or is it "frozen"?..

Comment #85

Hmmmm... I wonder why they didn't take Lawyer.im a few days after I regged it? I have every intention on doing that at the proper time...

Comment #86

If there is no cost, hunting season has begun on dot I'm names. Just send a letter for the domain of your choice and hope for the best.

In fact, if the transfer is made to the complainant in this case, perhaps a few thousand people will file a complaint asking for the name lawyer .im to be transferred to them based on the abusive registration process being used by this law firm or any other reason of their choosing. That would make for a very busy Designated Official...

Comment #87

I could probably put a site up complaining about my experience while it's in the 10 day period of request for appeal, but it's prohibited to change contact details on the disputed name while it's under dispute under the IM DRP. Sounds like a good plan. I'd encourage anyone here to make a complaint to Nic.im based on Dickinson Cruickshank's abusive registration. It's totally FREE to make a complaint! Oops, I said their name...

Comment #88

Sympathy Brian... I considered a couple .IM domains, but ended up buying some .VN instead. Similar result tho! A couple really nice names were taken away well after the fact. They are registered to Vietnamese companies now. I got the money back, but needless to say I thought the names were worth more than the reg price...

Comment #89

Thanks Boca. Do you feel like they had rights to the names? Was it a similar situation to mine?..

Comment #90

No they let me pre-register one great name, took the money, then a month and a half later decided I could not register it. The other was during regular registration I regged it (successfully) and several days later I got an email saying it was denied.

From a broad perspective it looks the same: mom-and-pop registries that are highly susceptible to corruption or pressure from local powerbrokers. I knew this is a communist country when I decided to buy some names, but I thought they believed in the power of allowing a free and fair marketplace to operate. That includes speculators who just want to park their name, just like people buy real estate hoping to sell for profit.

If you lived on the isle of mann and had some walking-around money to share you could prolly get that domain back...

Comment #91

Seems some of these countries touting "no restrictions" are gift-wrapping good ccTLDs for the locals...like taking gamble.lv from me on the premise it was TM'd...it's tough to deal with pinheads.

Ironically, UDRP.org is a parking page...

Comment #92

Thanks for your comments. I am speaking with J. Berryhill via email about this. I'd appreciate more comments here as well.

Thanks everyone!.

BTW, can someone go and make an offer at Sedo for my name (lawyer.im). In the decision they said that the minimum offer was 115 pounds, but I never set a min offer. Can someone try to offer $75 and then $150 if that won't go in. I will cancel negotiations after the offer is made. Thanks!..

Comment #93

Maybe have someone else open a dispute claiming the same thing on the domain. This way another party has entered the dispute over the domain. Possibly tying up the dispute futher. Your rebuttal might be reheard or the person might get it instead of the lawyers and could transfer it back to you after it has been won.

Plus, the DNS still points to Sedo and since they are now the new owners, you could also dispute the parking page on thier new domain too. just kidding. but hey.

Work the system...

Comment #94

You should forward the letter to Sedo. Maybe they would be interested in this case...

Comment #95

If there is an appeal fund, count me in for 20, Briman.

As decisions go ..... that is a shocker..

Comment #96

I agree that all domain investors should be warned about this, but to the residents of the Isle of Man and the .IM registry, I would speculate that they'd consider it a good thing if names are not being held by us (I own a couple too) and are available for people wanting to actually develop IoM focused sites...

Comment #97

It is very apparent that if they wanted to keep the TLD for IOM citizens, they could have done so by making it part of the rules. By making it open, they made a decision to go for the world market income, rather than benefit citizens only. I would guess that whoever made the decision in this case didn't agree with the original decision to open the TLD and is deciding based on their own wants rather than the written rules.

One of two things should happen here. 1. If appealed the case gets overtuned and the person who decides is told they made the wrong decision against those who decided to make the TLD open. 2. The person who decided sets a precedent beyond the rules and the TLD loses it's credibility as an open TLD (stopping or slowing the foreign income generation for IOM...

Comment #98

The dnjournal should do an article about this incident, I think that would be a good first step.....

Comment #99

Excellent idea RW! I hadn't considered this! I will try to contact them tonight. The only problem with #1 is that the "Designated Official" who decides the dispute also decides on the appeal. This BS is just wrong. They have openly promoted this as open to worldwide registration plain and simple. There is no defense for sending this dispute to a Nimrod who obviously doesn't know what he's doing...

Comment #100

You have my backing on this - this is scandalous.

Refer the iom nic to this thread and any others you start...

Comment #101

That is very kind of you Steve! All I need is 23 more like you to have enough for the appeal. Personally, I'd much rather spend money on a lawsuit at this point for breach of contract (or whatever is applicable). If there are any lawyer's here who want to get some free advertising, let me know! Thanks for the idea, maybe if Nic.im/Domicilium gets enough complaints from people and companies, they will take notice.

Oh BTW, on the balance of probabilities and email timestamps, the "Designated Official" received the documents and decided on the dispute in less than a business day...

Comment #102

Lol, maybe you can get the new owners of Lawyers.im to represent you?.

Sorry, couldn't resist.....

Comment #103

Don't think I haven't thought that... but only for a nanosecond...

Comment #104

Brian,.

Just wanted to make sure I didn't miss it -.

What arbitration forum / provider was used? And any contact info for the "designated official"?.

-Allan..

Comment #105

Nope, contact with the "designated official" is prohibited by the IM DRP. The official is part of "The Government" whatever that means!..

Comment #106

UN FREAKIN REAL!.

WOW...Just WOW! The nerve of this decision. Go to DNJournal and get them to start touting this all over domainer forums...this is crazy. This really irks me...I don't see anywhere the mentioning of their TM which is the only true "legitimate use" they could have. Basically this precedent means ANYONE parking a domain can have it swiped. INSANITY.

Hmmm...I just took 5 minutes to go over to www.nic.im and found their resolution dispute PDF. https://www.nic.im/pdfs/disputeresolution.pdf.

Damn I wish I had read that before. And you should have contacted JBH immediately when we said to.

There is a section (part 3a I think) where it discusses improper domain use. It does clearly say that selling the domain to the complaintant or a competitor of the complaintant is evidence of "Abusive Registration". Essentially parking screwed you and anyone parking an IM domain can have the same results. You will have to prove you had no intention to sell to a competitor and you will need to attempt that they can't prove that. At no time did you attempt to sell to them to domain and while it was listed at Sedo that does not prove you were selling it to a direct competitor of the complaintant. The past sentence I just wrote should have been in your response but it's too late now.

I hope you appeal but it's iffy that you can win. Shame.

Anyone registering .im domains should be extremely careful of parking...

Comment #107

What a great shame briman. Having read through the whole post, there are loads of different subjects that have raised their ugly heads!!.

Someone mentioned about reorting the incident to ICCANN, With NIC being linked to ICCANN surely they must report this themselves to ICCANN.

I have 2 .IM and are now really considering my options with them.

All the best with any future action you take...

Comment #108

Briman1970: If I where you I would make a whole summary of events and explain everything in full on a single webpage and submit the story to digg.com!.

I would digg the story for you and I am sure a whole lot of members on this board and other boards as well probably would take a minute to register and digg the story if they aren't registered yet.

This way the whole world can see how rediculous the decision was that has been made.

Exposing the NIC.im registry as incompetent and unfair and ignoring their own rules..

It is your domain and no other entity has the right to claim this domain from you..

Because the domain is parked at Sedo it does not mean it's a valid reason to conclude you are truly and determined to sell the domain.

I would digg it Anyone else want to help briman by spending a couple of minutes of their time to digg thus vote for the story and getting it on to the front page?.

If you have posted the story to digg then mention this in this thread but don't put a live link in the thread briman..

With all that exposure potential, JBH may be interested in taking on this "battle" and benefit from all the exposure.

It would be an awesome marketing technique for JBH to get involved with the first dispute that has been started over a .IM extension...

Comment #109

I will definitly help out in any way I can. I just read every post in this thread and I feel that you were cheated. Let me know what you are planning on doing about this...

Comment #110

Parking it is probably what tilted the balance. If you look at the title on the browser for the parked page it says:.

"lawyer.im - Lawyer info. This website is for sale!".

No maybe about it. It was a nasty stitch-up though. Appealing would be high risk because it would be difficult to disprove the grounds of the decision. And the .im registry might decide to pull the domain completely and put it on the blacklist.

The only way out that I can see is to argue that you forgot to change the default text and the domain was only being parked as a temporary measure until you transferred it.

Regards...jmcc..

Comment #111

Hmmm... I haven't thought of asking them because I'm not a member. I have considered joining before. I'll PM one of their founders today. DN Journal said they couldn't do a story on it because they would quickly be inundated with demands that DNJournal do stories about every dispute someone is involved in (etc, etc.) I appreciate your supportive comments. According to the IM DRP bad faith isn't enough to get the domain taken away.

The dispute shouldn't have gotten further than Domicilium, but for some strange reason ($$$?) it did. Regarding the sentence, I think it's a moot point... the "Designated Nimrod" obviously based his decision on something other than Nic.im's policies. There is no doubt that a court of law would see through their ridiculous decision. Unfortunately, I'm not a rich man...

Comment #112

Digg the the whole story, maybe all the bad press would be to much for them and in the process you may even find someone willing to find against this injustice...

Comment #113

I have reported it to the ICANN Ombudsman. I don't know where else to report it on their site. Can I make a formal dispute with ICANN over something like this for free or cheap? It is a great idea. I wonder if it will matter to them? From his email responses, I don't think he wants to do this for free, even if it gains him a little more exposure. He is a nice guy though. Thanks for your support! I will probably take you up on your offer. Do you have any .im names?..

Comment #114

Sorry to hear this whole mess Briman - looks like the .im domains are run by a bunch of monkeys - I only reg'd two .im s thank God !.

One of them was taken off me already - I could of fought it but don't have the time, money or patience to deal with people that keep changing the goalposts. They are way overpriced too !.

When I reg'd the 2 names it did not mention anything about either of them having to be refered - A couple of weeks later they sent me a letter saying one had been cancelled and I would have to appeal to the Goverment in order to keep it.

Looks like they just change the rules as they see fit ! A bunch of Morons IMO.

Best of luck with whatever route you decide to follow.

...

Comment #115

Maybe these guys can help www.dc.co.im.

Or you can tell them what you think of them and their sharp practice.

Q) What do you call 1000 lawyers chained together at the bottom of the sea ?

A) A good start..

Comment #116

Yup, pretty soon they're (most likely) going to be sporting a brand new name thanks to "The IOM Government Designated Official"...

Comment #117

I own 3 domains at .IM registry. I'm in if you need any help I can provide. At least more international - I'm from Ukraine...

Comment #118

That sentence made me think of another way to think of that official and how they seem to have thought of themselves in this case...

Isle O' Man - Government Official, Designated.

Abbreviated - I'M G.O.D...

Comment #119

ICANN has no authority over policies or policy decisions in ccTLD's. The only involvement ICANN has with the ccTLD's is over the root zone delegation of the TLD. The ccTLD managers are free to pursue whatever policies they would like, and to make whatever decisions they would like.

The ICANN ombudsman deals only with disputes involving decisions made by ICANN, of which this particular decision is not one...

Comment #120

Jberryhill is absolutely right. IM registry can do whatever they wish, actually, alas. The only thing - if they obey to IOM government you can try to count on them and discuss the issue with them. Anyway, I'm quite disappointed with the issue...

Comment #121

Thanks Wasisdas! I will PM you soon. Too funny!..

Comment #122

Well out of fear of "another claim", I have removed slots.im from Sedo - at least for now.....Pretty sad I'd say!.

But if I can do anything here in Canada for you, just let me know,.

I am more than willing to help..

Comment #123

Good to see you back at Namepros JB! I appreciate all the advice on this (including the above). It shows how little I know about all this.

It looks like my only defense will have to be communication with Nic.im & Domicilium and then massive publicity about my experience if they refuse to assist me. My domains bring in over 2,500 uniques a week. It's fairly easy to forward them to wherever I wish. Yep, it is too bad that you have to do that. You were getting pretty good traffic, if I'm not mistaken. I will be PMing you soon. Thanks for your support!..

Comment #124

Realtor is not a term used in the UK or Isle of Man. The term used is 'Estate Agent'...

Comment #125

I did wonder why there weren't many .IM's on Sedo !.

I really feel for you, Briman, this is completely unjust.

It makes a mockery of the whole "purchase" process, and allows anyone to claim a .IM name from a legitimate owner, as long as they "looked" at the name first..

This "case" - if it can even be called a case, with the way it has been dealt with - will only serve to hurt the aftermarket in .IM's.

I'm a United Kingdom citizen, and I'm now concerned about regging .IM's for fear some company will be deemed to have "legitimate use".

Good luck with your pursual of your case, I really hope someone "big" can step in on your behalf, it kinda reminds me of the Sex.com fiasco ...

Comment #126

Can I get the UK media involved in this?.

Robert..

Comment #127

Absolutely! Any help I can get would be greatly appreciated! I've barely had any time to work on this...

Comment #128

Have you heard anything at all yet from them?.

And here's a silly question....are they offering.

Any $ for it or are they simply just stealing it?..

Comment #129

I sent a complaint to Nic.im and Domicilium.com on August 26 as the first step in our battle to retain ownership of Lawyer.im. Here it is... Dear Sir or Madam,.

We vehemently disagree with this decision. The Designated Official has.

Blatantly ignored the IM DRP section 2(A)(i). According to this portion.

Of the DRP, Mrs. Jackson doesn't have to submit to these proceedings.

Unless complainant can prove that they have rights to a name or mark.

Which is similar or identical to the disputed domain.

This domain is utterly generic and these proceedings shouldn't even have.

Occurred, much less result in the loss of Mrs. Jackson's domain.

Registration.

Please reply,.

Brian Raymond.

Authorised representative.

To Wanda Jackson.

I haven't had much time to do anything else, but I did begin preparing an article about my experience. I was then going to use Digg, Sedo, the press and whoever else would listen to me to get my story circulated as widely as possible.

It looks like I won't be needing to proceed. Domicilium, Nic.im and the IOM Designated Official saw my point about the absurdity of the original decision. Read their response to my complaint below!!! The decision was overturned!!!!.

Dear Mrs Jackson & Mr Brian Raymond.

Re: Domain Name Lawyer.im;.

Further to the recent Dispute Resolution case raised against the domain name.

LAWYER.IM by Dickinson Cruickshank and your subsequent informal Appeal against.

The original decision of the Isle of Man Governments Designated Official..

Please find attached a copy of the outcome of the review undertaken on this.

DRP case by the Isle of Man Government's Designated Official.

Yours sincerely.

IM Domain Manager.

Lawyer.im domain registration.

Whereas.

The registrant, via authorised representative, having indicated on August 26th 2006 their appeal against the IOM DRP response to the original complaint by Dickinson Cruickshank, in which the Designated Official found evidence of Abusive Registration in that the domain name has been registered with a site that is listing the domain name for sale. The minimum amount requested for consideration is 115. It is therefore concluded that the Domain Name registration is subject to a decision under section 3 (A) (i) (a) of the DRP and that the Domain Name Registration is an abusive registration.

Albeit.

The registrants appeal was conveyed informally via e-mail, without full compliance with IoM DRP (i.e. payment of 500).

But.

IoM Government recognising this as the first test of a newly developed process, which it wishes to ensure is fair and robust.

Then.

IoM Government is prepared to consider the appeal of 26th August as a formal appeal and has reviewed the entire registration process in relation to lawyer.im and the domain ownership.

Designated Official Decision in relation to the Appeal against decision following original complaint.

As indicated in the Designated Official Response, the bulk of the complaint related to failure to close the registration in the appropriate timescale which locked the domain name against allocation elsewhere.

This finding is endorsed. www.nic.im is very clear in the first page of the new domain registration process that after requesting a domain name, if the domain is available then it will automatically be locked for a period of 1 hour to allow completion of registration. In the event that the registration is not completed, then a new attempt to register the domain can be made again after 1 hour. The complainant failed to understand that process. There can be no debate about having placed in a shopping cart or failure of the nic.im payment system two days later, as the process is simply and succinctly defined in a very visible space on the appropriate page.

The complainant indicated that the domain name was parked on a site used explicitly for the selling of unwanted domains. The Designated Official concurred with that finding in that the domain name was registered with a site that is listing the domain name for sale. The minimum amount requested for consideration was 115. It was therefore concluded that the registration was subject to a decision under Section 3 (A) (i) (a) of the DRP and that the Domain Name Registration was an abusive registration. On that basis the complaint was upheld.

This finding is rejected.

IoM DRP 3 (A) as cited above states that a non-exhaustive list of factors which may be evidence that the Domain name is an Abusive Registration is as follows:.

(i) Circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or otherwise acquired the Domain name primarily:.

(a) For the purposes of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the Domain name to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondents documented out-of-pocket costs directly associated with acquiring or using the domain name.

It is noted that the domain name was parked on a third party web-site www.sedo.com which offers to sell domain names or provide an opportunity to earn money with domain parking. This is not uncommon practice in the domain registration business. This does not directly provide evidence compliant with 3 (A) (i) (a) in that it is clearly possible to simply earn money through click-through advertising on domains hosted on that site, and this is claimed by the registrant as the original purpose of the site. There is no evidence of a clear primary intent by the registrant to directly sell, rent or otherwise transfer the domain name for any consideration (valuable or otherwise).

Neither is there any evidence of a clear intent by the registrant to deal directly with the Complainant or any competitor of the Complainant..

For the purposes of clarification, this would be particularly relevant in relation to use of registered trademarks or corporate names, e.g. coke.im or Disney.im, in which case the Coca Cola company or the Disney company could display clear proprietary ownership of the names. In this case, the use of the domain lawyer.im is clearly generic to which the complainant has no direct relevance.

Conclusion.

As noted earlier, the IoM Dispute Resolution Process is newly developed.

As such, the Isle of Man Government is keen to ensure this is a fair and robust process, and one which recognises accepted good practice in other jurisdictions, with an overall goal of preserving and protecting the Islands reputation as a well and appropriately regulated environment.

Having reviewed the complaint and subsequent appeal, it is the view of the Isle of Man Government that the original complaint should not be upheld, and the decision of the Designated Official responsible for the first stage (i.e. the Complaint) is therefore overturned. This decision is final. (IoM DRP 14 (D)).

5th September 2007 Our faith in the .IM namespace is hereby restored! I will be sending a thank you letter to them for taking the necessary steps to protect their customer's valid domain registration! Awesome news!!!..

Comment #130

Let me be first to congratulate you. Thanks God someone has some sense over there. Now we just need to convince ICAAN of it's own absurdity with the new .biz/.org/.info policy...

Comment #131

I appreciate it Jesse. Thanking God is exactly what I'm doing right now!!! I am sooooo thankful that they ended up doing the right thing with this! They must've realized that it wouldn't benefit them to let this error in judgement get spread to the masses.

Thank you EVERYONE for your kind comments, offers of support and great advice! This is definitely one of the greatest forum communities on the entire net!..

Comment #132

That's Fantastic!!! I'm so glad it went your way....

Definetly restores the faith in the "system".

Congratulations!!!..

Comment #133

Congrats Brian, I have been following along as things have been progressing and I was very sad when it looked as though you would lose your domain. I am so very happy for you...

Comment #134

WAY TO FIGHT!! congrats.

Send a link to DNJ, It'll give .im some good pub..

Comment #135

Congratulations Brian, the fact that they tried to take this name away from you was clearly a wrong decision. I am sure it was disappointing when you thought you had the domain and then the deal almost fell throughI am glad to see that this worked out in your favor. If it had not, I (and I am sure many others) would never consider buying a .im domain...

Comment #136

Congrats! Now to just go after the complainant for your expenses and time lost in your defense.... if that's possible. Probably not...

Comment #137

Great News!.

I am glad it is finally over!..

Comment #138

Couldn't be happier for you, Brian.

Glad to see that the right thing does happen, even on the IOM.

-Allan..

Comment #139

Now you should send them an email and ask them.

How much their willing to pay for it since they wanted it.

So bad in the first place..

Comment #140

Wow, some sense finally came out it all!.

Now what do you plan on doing with the name? Develop a site?..

Comment #141

Nice one, Brian. Pleased it all came good in the end...

Comment #142

Gentlemen and Ladies.

It would not normally be appropriate for me to respond "on the boards" to an issue such as this - and indeed, the response released yesterday in relation to the lawyer.im appeal would normally be the only comment made.

However, as the Senior Officer in Isle of Man Government responsible for the introduction of the IoM's new approach to Domain Registration, I thought I'd try to clear up a little of the murk surrounding this recent incident.

First, I should say that there was an existing very time consuming, manual vetting process introduced some ten years or so ago. This was appropriate at the time, given the very immature stage of the world of the internet then, and given a very tight regulatory regime in place to help establish and maintain a growing Financial Services Industry on the island. This manual process could take 30 days to authorize a domain registration, and was incredibly risk averse - so no generics, no financial services names which weren't already registered companies with our Financial Services Comission, no tradenames where trademark ownership lay elsewhere, etc.

About a year ago, we decided it was appropriate to revisit the whole process with a view to adopting recognised good practice elsewhere, and to speeding up the process considerably. While still keen to protect the Island's reputation as a well regulated jurisdiction, we sought to make this light touch regulation surrounding what would essentially be an automated process. the agenda here was far more about ensuring the Isle of Man domain was recognised and used in a way which supported our desire to attract more e-business to the Island. From a Government viewpoint, this was far more about the broader economic benefit to the Island than about increased income directly related to increased registrations.

July 1st 2006 saw the introduction of the process, with the floodgates being opened up at the same time as we were now in a position to register domains directly against .im as opposed to via .co.im, etc.

Given that this was an entirely new process for us, and the volume of business that immediately arose, it was inevitable that we would (a) miss a couple of the identified service levels (particularly in relation to registrations which had been referred) and (b) experience some challenges in areas where we were seeking to reduce the degree of regulation previously experienced.

In essence, we are simply bedding down the process.

The particulars of the lawyer.im case are discussed at length in this forum - and the final resolution is already posted in this forum. As such I have no intention of discussing any of the detail.

Suffice it to say that the issues surrounding the registration of lawyer.im arose during what was the first week of the brand new process. Accordingly, we were very keen to ensure that the processes were working effectively.

Having reviewed the events and discussion surrounding the lawyer.im issue, (a) we're very comfortable that the processes are effective, but (b) we realised we needed to focus clearly on our view of the areas which potentially created reputational risk for us as a jurisdiction.

To conclude, I want to provide clear reassurance that we are not acting like some Big Brother, in a totally arbitrary and highly defensive mode. We seek to provide a respected domain registry which operates good practice as generally recognised. But, as I'm sure you will all understand, there will of necessity be times when we have to make decisions to mitigate against reputational risk.

I'm glad to say that following due process, we were able to conclude the lawyer.im dispute resolution in a fair and constructive manner.

Thanks to all for their opinions on this matter...

Comment #143

IoM,.

Your post explaining IoM registry history, goals and current operational challenges is appreciated.

I would offer that allowing complainants to have a cost-free way to challenge a registration while requiring either party losing that challenge to pay for an appeal is a significant deterrent for investing money in registering and developing IM domains for ebusiness. Some reasonable financial cost would seem appropriate to deter challengers who merely hope for a positive result without having established rights in a name...

Comment #144

Views noted - we made the complaint stage free to encourage genuine complaint, whereas the appeal cost is to discourage vexatious or spurious appeals. You will note that in this case we treated this as a formal appeal even without payment. The overall DRP costing issue is one which we recognise and will be discussing as part of a debrief to ensure our Dispute Resolution Process is effective and fair.

THANKS..

Comment #145

IOM,.

Thank you for your post and thank you for the fair treatment. It is refreshing to see an objective look at oneself, realize the growing pains associated with the task at hand, and then have the gumption to make it right.

I do have to agree with the free challenges, it can get abusive.

Briman,.

Congratulations on your persrverence...

Comment #146

IOM, welcome to Namepros. Thanks for joining and becoming proactive in the IOM registrations. Speaking for myself, I had to say that I was concerned with the previous decision regarding lawyer.im, as I too hold a few of the IOM domains.

Once again, thank you and welcome..

Comment #147

I truly appreciate all the kind and supportive comments from everyone here at Namepros. I know I've said it before, but I can't thank you all enough!.

IOM, thank you especially for coming to Namepros and taking the time to make such an informative post. It really is reassuring to know that you and your organization considered this decision important enough to bump my complaint up to "formal" at no cost to me. I think it shows your character that you saw this decision as we did... a precedent that once set could be damaging to the .im domain space and to the credibility of the Domicilium/Nic.im systems of domain registration and dispute resolution. I feel honored to have played some small part in further establishing your reputation as a respected domain registry which sets and follows good practices and ethical treatment of it's domain registration holders.

I'm looking forward to the time when .im domains are as well known as some of the more common extensions such as .org, .us or .info. I think most of the members here would agree that any initial complaint should be required a reasonable fee to move forward. After the initial decision was made to transfer my Lawyer.im domain to the complainant, I was afraid that my other registrations could easily be challenged as well.

I also feel that the fee to appeal an IM DRP decision is somewhat high. The current appeal fee is almost $1000 after conversion. This is out of the ballpark for a great many domain investors, developers and e-business owners (if not the majority of us)...

Comment #148

Justice was done and all credit to IOM taking the time to appear on the board.

They have made a correct decision and I consider that the iom lawyers in question have done themselves a major diservice and their petty attempt to subvert the system should be exposed.

The ''arbitrator " and his 10 second decision should also be reprimanded.

Would you deal with a company that tries to do something like this - I for one would not. Not the way to use their legal might and they should have known better.

Congrats Briman and well done IOM - definitely proved yourselves worthier than the "long established lawyers"..

Comment #149

Congrats Briman!!! So happy to see this was settled correctly! Otherwise it would have been oh so bad for the .im extension...

Comment #150

WOW, Congrats Brian!! Nice to hear you got your domain back.

Awesome!!..

Comment #151

When's the film coming out - who's gonna play Briman?..

Comment #152

I must be missing something in this thread because as far that I can read he never actually lost his name, but it was recommended in the original decision that the lawyers were awarded lawyer.im. However he used his period of appeal and won and during this time the lawyer.im was & according to whois still reg under his wife/ partners name. But as I say I could be missing something. Anyway, well done IOM for explaining the process...

Comment #153

That's a little premature, Jasdon - Grisham is still putting the finishing touches on the screenplay. Here's a sneak preview: A Few Good Domains.

DickinsonCruickshank (Jack Nicholson): You want answers?.

Briman (Tom Cruise): I think I'm entitled to them.

DC: You want answers?.

Briman: I want the truth!.

DC: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has criminals. And those criminals have to be defended by men with gowns and wigs. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Briman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for your lost domain and you curse the lawyers. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that lawyer.im's transfer, while tragic, probably saved lives.

Because deep down, in places you don't talk about in the chatroom, you want me to have that domain. You need me to have that domain..

We use words like legal, isle of man, generic...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending criminals. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who lives three thousand miles away and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said here is your domain and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a case and stand on trial. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!.

Briman: Did you order the DRP knowing you had no legal right to it?.

DC: I did the job the other partners sent me to do.

Briman: Did you order the DRP?.

DC: You're goddamn right I did!!..

Comment #154

You have far to much time on your hands,but that is quality!!! still laughing !!..

Comment #155

Haha, I think someone chosen the wrong direction in life.

So Cambkey? Already moving to Hollywood yet?.

You definately displayed some director potential there friend!..

Comment #156

Great news Briman - You should'nt have even been subject to this nonsense but at least it turned out well in the end.

It is nice to see a representative repond - So.....Can I have my name back that you took from me ????? IsleofMan.im.

I paid for it and there was NO MENTION of this domain having to be referred when doing so ! seems like someone just decided two weeks later that I could'nt have it unless I made an appeal.

No mention of for what reason your decision was made !.

Also is it safe for me TO CONTINUE TO DEVELOP my Ferry.im domain or are you going to want that back sometime ? What do you say mr .im ?

...

Comment #157

Awesome post! This had me rollin' on the floor! Especially the last few lines! Technically, you're right... but our email was just an informal complaint until IOM let us know that it was an important enough issue for them to consider it as a formal appeal. Until they demonstrated their integrity by doing what was right, we really didn't know what was in store for us. We were getting ready for a long fight...

Comment #158

I think I might have to register a couple .im domains this week. :-)..

Comment #159

Good job Brian. Your persistence has hopefully taken things in a more reasonable direction. I feel much more confident in .im domains now that this has been resolved. I appreciate your standing efforts in seeing that a bad precendent wasn't allowed to be set.

Thank you iom, for a fair and reasonable decision. I think it brings credibility and a sense of fairness to the registry and IOM that may have been lost otherwise. I have to say though, I think some thought needs to be made in regards to who pays in a dispute. If there is no cost to file a dispute by the claimant, you may end up with numerous frivelous claims and reverse hijacking attempts, which we all feared was going to happen here. If an appeal process has a cost, it should be either reasonable, or at least no more in cost than what it cost the original claimant. I understand it was waived in this instance, but I still see that as an issue going forward.

I also see a question that is bound to come up, in that when a registration is overturned in favor of the government wanting public use of a domain or not wanting it registered at all after being approved, the registration fee should be refunded. I'm only talking about cases where the domain is revoked in favor of the Isle of Man, not when clear TM infringement is found. Most of us were wondering if this decision had not been reversed, would the regitration fee have been refunded...

Comment #160

Wow! Great job! At least .IM proved to be a fair market. My congrats!..

Comment #161

BTW, I just wanted to let everyone know that traffic to Lawyer.im has significantly increased since the complaint. We've gotten more uniques in 8 days than we've had the whole month of August! Plus, a couple of days ago we got our 5th click for $1.99!.

My immediate plans for the site are to post the final decision by IOM and put a large banner at top that says "This site is UNDER CONSTRUCTION!!!" until I can get my coding done (it could be a while)...

Comment #162

Brian, what are your plans for this lawyer.im site anyways? Just wondering...

Comment #163

I would like to address some issues that have been brought to light from this complaint/appeal.

The descision to return the domain to you was based on the findings largely that you did not try to sell the domain to the complaintants. So, this still means that if you try to sell a .im domain to a competitor ie anyone that is willing to buy the domain that claims to want to create a site out of it. The competitor can create a complaint and have it took away without having to pay you for it.

Then there is the other thing about how your case was appealed at no cost. This does not mean others will be as lucky that gets the same type of complaint brought against them to have the domain returned. As briman1970 had to go above thier chain of command to be heard or pay to be reheard.

The IoM repusentative should explain what it plans on doing for future complaints of this nature, because it still leaves open the chance of a domain being took away as the system is now.

I can understand the costs being in place to prevent a nasty back and forth battle that just wastes the time and money of the officals, but there should be at least something in place to allow for one free appeal before a fee structure is set into place for those times when a quick decision by a DC is wrong and an appeal is needed.

I also see a problem in the appeal being reseen by the same DC. As the complaint / appeal would be subjected to the same point of view as it was the first time it was read by the DC and could be subject to a prejudice of sorts from the DC. I suggest a revision of this policy to allow for another point of view meaning to have another person review the appeal.

Congrats on geting the domain back, but it did open my eyes to a back door that exists on how to get a free .im and a few other issues that left a bad taste in my mouth (so to speak).

-..

Comment #164

He is going to use it as a site to expose lawyers who try abuse their power by circumventing the rules...

Comment #165

See post #176 for the answer (the one directly above your post.) After that, I was planning to have a directory site where IOM lawyers or lawfirms would pay for advertisements and/or profiles of themselves. It would have IOM law/crime related newsfeeds on the main page, possibly a forum with an "ask-a-lawyer" section which would be answered by any lawyers or firms who wanted to snag a client. I'm open to ideas if you guys have any! Good post Bliss, and good points made. Regarding the particular point you've made above, I believe that the decision was also based on the fact that the domain was generic. The following comment from IOM's decision leads me to believe that this was an important part of it: "For the purposes of clarification, this would be particularly relevant in relation to use of registered trademarks or corporate names, e.g. Coke.im or Disney.im, in which case the Coca Cola company or the Disney company could display clear proprietary ownership of the names. In this case, the use of the domain lawyer.im is clearly generic to which the complainant has no direct relevance.".

I my mind, this precedent that has been set by IOM protects a registrant from loss of a clearly generic domain due to a frivolous dispute, even if the domain is parked. Of course, their DRP clearly states that if a domain is generic or descriptive and being used fairly, it can't be considered an abusive registration.

The complainant has to prove infringement upon a trademark, service mark or trade name AND that the domain is an abusive registration. I think IOM's final decision found that I was guilty of neither. Hmmmm.... I don't know... I just got a $2.01 click today on Sedo! I might leave it there for a little while...

Comment #166

Great news all round, Been a pain in the ass for you, all the time and efforst you have put into it.

Just reading IOM comments!!!.

As they say, there is a process to follow for such things as this, and as it was raised tin the first week or so it was going to happen to someone.

But at least IOM took time to comment.

Only a thought!!!!! Maybe we should get everyone with namepros to spend some time in reading this thread, lots of lessons to be learn't for all.

WELL DONE...

Comment #167

I just read through all of this and decided to post a congratulations.

Congratulations on getting your domain back. It was wrong for them to think of taking it from you in the first place as sated many time before in this topic.

Anyway, congratulations!..

Comment #168

Fascinating thread ... you should sue those lawyers for abuse !.

Congrats on getting YOUR name back Brian...

Comment #169

First.... Brian, well and good this turned out in your favor, it had been a travesty from the onset and I do believe you deserve reparations for your grief and stress caused by this issue. Huge mistakes were made and examples should be set.

Second... Look at the titans of domaining posting in this thread that rallied to your cause. What a force to be reckoned with. I wonder how much influence the combined weight of these legends had on the IoM decision to grant you "special" treatment after the fact. This plus the fact everything was being aired out on the boards of the number one industry forum for all to see, that didnt hurt your case one bit. Proof of this IMHO is the posting by Senior Officer in Isle of Man Government, and now NamePros member iom..

Welcome iom, and we applaud you for your efforts in settling this matter and also sharing the IoM policies that allowed this action in the first place, along with your willingness to address them. That sir took a fair amount of courage.

Finally... It must be noted that nothing has really changed within the IoM policy and practice, and that this was a "special" circumstance that allowed Brian to circumvent the appeals fee. As already mentioned by other members this may not be the decision in regards to future disputes. Clearly problems will continue to arise until a fair and defined standard can be implemented that protects both parties involved in any action. Until then, we as domainers will continue to express our concerns and lend full support should the occasion demand as such.

Again, congratulations on a fair and just outcome of this case and lets hope as Brian stated this does indeed set precedent against frivolous disputes involving the dot IM extention.

Peace,.

Cyberian..

Comment #170

Briman1970: You are right. I did not bring that up, because I did not have a problem with that. If I read it right the orginal DC saw it as generic too.

It was based on a number of things; The "failed" attempt to buy the domain and the one that failed did not understand the process of buying a domain, the generic nature of the domain, and you not selling the domain are the ones that I recall at this late hour of the night.

My hope was the IOM user would respond to the post to give us at least some hope that selling just a .im domain would not mean we would loose the domain.

Also, does this policy apply to fully developed websites that we want to sell for profit. If I recall it does not, but for a refresher over the question. I wouldn't mind the IOM user to respond and give us the offical policy.

Edit: Okay, I see why you brought up the trademark. *but* they did not respond to it in clear terms. Meaning they did not say the competitor would have to have a trademark on the name before the complaint would be valid and the domain would be gave to the complaintant.

-..

Comment #171

You might want to file a complaint with the Isle Of Man Law Society. Here is their link for complaining about services rendered by a lawyer there. It appears to be the "Bar" of their jurisdiction, so perhaps they will hear your complaint against those who have allegedly acted in bad faith against you.

The site also gives you access to all firms, advocates and members of the Isle of Man Law Society. You might want to email a lawyer there to see if you can sue any of the lawyers involved in your lawyer.im issue.

On a final note, I think that the decision in the appeal hit the nail on the head in a clear, concise and well-reasoned manner. http://www.iomlawsociety.co.im/complaints-main.htm..

Comment #172

Thanks Homebuyer! I will look into this.

Thanks for all the nice comments everyone!.

Bri..

Comment #173

After reading the posts after mine I am glad to see that you got the domain back. I hope the support of the NP community helped...

Comment #174

In a wey it must be quite cool to be in this kind of battle. You dont really have to much to lose other than the domain name.... do you?..

Comment #175

I just read this entire thread, very compelling TV, err thread.. First, congratulations to Brian for the well deserved victory.

Secondly I'd just like to agree with the people who have stated that filing a complaint should have a fee involved. Any organization or business that has a legitimate claim to a domain via TM rights (which is the only legitimate claim), has the money to put up the initial fee to file a dispute. As a TM owner, it is their right and responsibility to protect their mark. However, an individual, such as Brian, who runs a small business, usually doesn't have the resources to pay an exhorbant amount of money for an appeal. Thus their current system is skewed and puts the little guy at an extreme disadvantage to protect his rights from the abuses of a company looking to profit off of a domain they have no legal rights to, which was clearly the case here. As was stated, they made an exception in Brian's case, but what happens to the hundreds or thousands of "little guys" over the course of the next few years, who get screwed out of their rightful domains by some random profiteering company, when they don't have the money to pay for an appeal?.

Big businesses can afford (and probably write-off) legal expenses to protect their marks, the small business owner can not afford to protect himself from money hungry sharks who have no restraints due to the current system.....

Comment #176

IOM - Good post, it was nice to see you drop by to explain your process...

Comment #177

I think if you read the post by IOM the reason for reversing the decision is pretty clear. i.e. New process, first test, lessons learned. I think it would be wrong to assume that the world is aware of the domain posters who commented on this case and therefore it would be equally wrong to assume that the Government Official took this into consideration when reviewing the case.

IMHO the lessons to be learned are: -.

Stand your ground;.

Be clear and concise in your defense;.

Be prepared to put some time in;.

Create dialogue before threats!.

Granted the large organizations can throw money at legal disputes, however, these can be costly both in terms of financial input and public/ customer opinion. Don't forget, these guys have to answer to share/ stock holders and wasting money on legal matters doesn't go down to well if the dividends drop!.

It would be interesting to read a similar dispute for any of the other domains? Would it have been resolved as expediently, would they post on these boards? The IOM poster showed his metal and stuck his/ her head above the parapet, how many other execs in the domain world would do the same?.

There are more positives in this case than negatives...

Comment #178

Don't be too happy, if they sue you you will lose.

Why you ask yourself, You are telling here it's domain buying/selling what I readed.

Thats already orignal illegal by icann.

In 2-3 years this is forbidden and icann is going to bill people for this tricks. it's just ridicoules how much people register domains which they dont need.

Do we want to start bussiness or screw internet, people who park pages are screwing internet.

For $30 bucks they can earn with parking they can earn $3000 bucks easy per year with a real site.

Stop parking and start doing bussiness. thats my opion. I lost 4 domains with enom after a lawsuit the same way.

So I hope you are not getting sued. the judge decided.

DOMAIN PARKING IS BAD!!! ITS PURE RIPPING OFF THE NAMES OFF INTENRET!!! thats what the judge said. somehow I agreed to them too...

Comment #179

Er, did you read the full post or did I miss something important?..

Comment #180

First of all, I suggest you read the entire thread before posting something like this. You are way off the mark on a number of counts! Briman has indicated the he will be developing this domain at some stage.

Also, ICANN has not ruled registering domains to buy/sell as illegal, nor has it ruled that parking domains is illegal. What will get you in trouble is registering and using a domain in bad faith. Also not that the domain in question is a .IM domain, and the rules for these are set out by the Isle of Man registry and complaints follow a different procedure to the standard URDP for .COMs.

As far as domain parking goes, well, there is absolutely nothing wrong with parking a domain and earning a few dollars from advertising revenue while you are developing it. I have a number of domains parked, but only because I do not have the time to develop all of them at once. Why should I not put up a parking page and make a couple of dollars?.

It sounds as if you have been on the receiving end of a couple of nasty URDPs which may have caused you some grief. I am sorry for you, but there are many legitimate reasons for parking domains and parking alone is not evidence of bad faith...

Comment #181

I appreciate the time you took to make your post. I don't have the extra time right now to go into more detail, so I will simply say that I pretty much disagree with everything you said. I especially disagree with the two quotes above...

Comment #182

To clarify, parking a TRADEMARKED is bad, not all parking in general. It has to deal with bad faith. There is a huge difference. It is obvious you did not bother to read this thread, but in a nutshell, a company tried to claim TM on a genereic term, the company lost and the Briman won based of the merit of facts.

I n the 4 domains you lost, were they TMs? If they were, then that is why you lost...

So there is a big difference...

Comment #183


This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.

 

Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |

 

(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.