Legal action against registrar domainname.com

[mole]

Can anyone please advise if I have a legal case against domainname.com for providing the following whois information after 3 weeks that Pool.com got the name for me and refusing to update the whois? I am willing to pau to teach this joker of a registrar a lesson.

whois readout:-

Domain Name: -------------------
Sorry, I can't tell you anything about ____________

http://DomainName.com -- Reserve Your Place In Cyber Space (tm)

[jberryhill]

http://domainname.com/Terms.html

YOU AGREE THAT DomainName WILL NOT BE LIABLE, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, FOR ANY (a) SUSPENSION OR LOSS OF YOUR DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION, (b) USE OF YOUR DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION, (c) INTERRUPTION OF BUSINESS, (d) ACCESS DELAYS OR ACCESS INTERRUPTIONS TO THIS SITE OR THE WEB SITE(S) ACCESSED BY THE DOMAIN NAME REGISTERED BY YOU, (e) DATA NON-DELIVERY, MIS-DELIVERY, CORRUPTION, DESTRUCTION OR OTHER MODIFICATION, (f) EVENTS BEYOND DomainName's REASONABLE CONTROL, (g) THE PROCESSING OF THIS APPLICATION, OR (h) APPLICATION OF THE DISPUTE POLICY OR ANY ICANN (OR SIMILAR GOVERNMENTAL OR SUCCESSOR ORGANIZATION) ADOPTED POLICIES. DomainName ALSO WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES OF ANY KIND (INCLUDING LOST PROFITS) REGARDLESS OF THE FORM OF ACTION WHETHER IN CONTRACT, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), OR OTHERWISE, EVEN IF DomainName HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN NO EVENT SHALL DomainName's MAXIMUM AGGREGATE LIABILITY EXCEED THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID BY YOU FOR REGISTRATION OF THE DOMAIN NAME, BUT IN NO EVENT GREATER THAN FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ($500.00).

[clemzonguy]

I can quote whatever terms I want in some "legal statement" but that doesn't make it legal, fair, or ethical if I am at completely and unmistakably at fault.

[FineE]

I can quote whatever terms I want in some "legal statement" but that doesn't make it legal, fair, or ethical if I am at completely and unmistakably at fault.

As Network Solutions and later Verisign found out to the tune of $15,000,000 in the case of Sex.com after six years of litigation.

[theparrot]

and it seems the name was bought through pool, so these terms were never seen and agreed to, and if even so may just be a contact of adhesion. What does pool say?

[bidawinner]

Geez, the Lawyer had the weakest arguement ( a disclaimer )

Agreed , If you dont want to put up with their nonsense then start filing the paper work.. does it mean you'll win ..of course not , but in the end you'll cause Pool and domainname.come enough bad press that they will loss revenues that maybe they'll get off their tails ..

good luck mole

[Steen]

and it seems the name was bought through pool, so these terms were never seen and agreed to, and if even so may just be a contact of adhesion. What does pool say?

You agree to the terms by signing up with Pool (I believe).

[JuniperPark]

Did you pay by credit card? Did you not get what you paid for? File a dispute with the credit card company.

Then script a query to Pool asking the status. Run it hourly a couple of days, then every minute, then every second.

[theparrot]

Did you pay by credit card? Did you not get what you paid for? File a dispute.

The problem with that is that they can just refund the money, and he loses any claim to the domain. I am guessing that is not desired.

[jberryhill]

"Geez, the Lawyer had the weakest arguement "

I don't recall making an argument. Sex.com was not registered under the current NSI contract, which is crucial in understanding the difference between that case and the size.com case.

However, it is readily understandable that 3 weeks of screwy whois data has easily caused the same, if not more, amount of damage that several YEARS of lost revenue from sex.com did.

"in the end you'll cause Pool and domainname.come enough bad press that they will loss revenues that maybe they'll get off their tails .."

Oh, yes, by all means... everyone will boycott Pool, for certain.

Sure, spend a couple of hundred bucks filing an action, and the day after you serve the papers, they'll probably fix the whois. It will probably be more expensive, but no less efficient, than simply being persistent and polite. If I were them, however, after fixing your problem, I would inform you that you are no longer authorized to use Pool and that they reserve the right to refuse service to you in the future.

By all means, send me a check and I'll get started. Gosh, what was I thinking.


"that doesn't make it legal, fair, or ethical"

A $500 liability cap on a ten dollar contract? You think a court will find that unconscionable? Dream on.

So let me get to this idea of "fair". "Fair" is where you come to me, offer me ten bucks to do something for you, and I assume the risk of losing 15 million.

Oh, yeah... that's fair. uh-huh

[mole]

Thanks for all your responses, guys. And to Kjel for personally trying to help me out. And Jamie from Pool for forwarding my request for help to Pool's developers. The whois finally converted today

Thanks!!

[NameWolf]

Well done ! You gotta push 'em sometimes I suppose...

NW

[jberryhill]

"The whois finally converted today"

Great to hear it. Solving problems is generally preferred to fighting them.

[dtobias]

Solving problems is generally preferred to fighting them.

Surprising sentiments from a lawyer, who makes his living from people fighting problems...

[jberryhill]

"Surprising sentiments from a lawyer, who makes his living from people fighting problems... "

I know that is the popular notion of what lawyers do. The reality is very different.

Aside from which, I primarily make my living from things like preparing and prosecuting patent applications, drafting and negotiating licensing agreements, forming corporations, trademark registrations, etc., etc. Absolutely, among the various domain-related things I do, if there is no alternative to litigation or the UDRP, then that's what happens. Relatively seldom is there "no alternative".

Show me a lawyer who primarily makes a living by fighting, and I will show you a lawyer who is remarkably unpersuasive, uncreative, and way too expensive. If your business is making legal points and providing lawyer's kids with braces, then you are set. If your business is running your business, then you should find a lawyer with the same goals that you have.

[HOWARD]

I agree with John completely. A bad settlement is almost always better than a good law suit. In protecting a client, a lawyer must determine and explain the economics of filing a law suit (or defending one, for that matter) to the client so that he will know what kind of costs will be incurred, which may far outweigh the benefits derived.

Of course, when it becomes simply a matter of principal and "let the costs be damned", then settlements are unlikely, though I have seen very skillful mediators settle even those matters of "principal". So when you retain counsel, listen to his advice as to whether to "fight it all the way" or to reach a settlement that makes nobody happy, yet everyone comes out ahead of the game.