Weird Situation

[anony]

Hello,

I have received an email for a domain offer. The sender claimed to represent a party interested in buying my domain.

It looked like an email from a lawyer (even though the sender never claimed to be a lawyer), so I went to the site the email offer came from.

It was a site of a law firm. I check for the sender on that site and found that the sender is an intellectual proerty rights lawyer.

Q: Should I respond to the offer? If yes, what should be the proper way to respond?

PS: The domain involves a city name. But there is also a company selling financial services involving that city name, but there is no registered trademark etc.

Thanks for your time, and help.

Regards,

[Togoodhlth]

Well, not sure if this helps but I received an offer from a intellectual property attorney and I countered and I sold a not so great name in my eyes for a pretty decent chunk of change.
The company who wanted the name contacted the attorney who knew about domains. The atorney contacted me on their behalf.

So dont get too worried unless the name is trademarked or is the exact name of the company you mentioned and you are selling or linking to similar products for sale.

Good luck and lets hope the offer is a good one!

John

[P10n33R]

Well if you want to sell it of course reply, just tell them to make you an offer. If you trust them 100% ask them why the third party is interested in the domain and if possible who they are. If you don't trust them that much and still would like to go with a deal, get them to call you.

[actnow]

Why don't you hire one of the lawyers on this board?

[jberryhill]

The sender claimed to represent a party interested in buying my domain.

It looked like an email from a lawyer (even though the sender never claimed to be a lawyer)

In what state is this lawyer licensed?

Take a look at these rules relevant to lawyers in Pennsylvania, for example:

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/20...er81/s4.1.html

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/20...er81/s4.3.html
(1) An unrepresented person, particularly one not experienced in dealing with legal matters, might assume that a lawyer is disinterested in loyalties or is a disinterested authority on the law even when the lawyer represents a client. In order to avoid a misunderstanding, a lawyer will typically need to identify the lawyer’s client and, where necessary, explain that the client has interests opposed to those of the unrepresented person.

What this boils down to, if you receive a communication from a Pennsylvania attorney stating, "I would like to buy your domain name" is that the Pennsylvania attorney had better darn well be expressing his or her own personal interest in buying the domain name. If that attorney is in fact representing a client with an adverse interest to yours, and has failed to disclose that fact, then that attorney can be subject to disciplinary action.

State rules vary, and the analysis would vary according to the state. Some state's rules, such as Minnesota, are more explicit in the duty of the lawyer to clearly disclose that he or she is acting in a representative capacity with a client having an adverse interest, and some states are not.

Quite often, these types of communications are attempts to frame up a cybersquatting complaint involving a trademark you've never heard of. Even when communications come from ISP or Yahoo! accounts etc., it is always a good practice to check the whois data on the originating IP address, to see if the IP address block belongs to a law firm.

Now, if this lawyer claimed to represent someone, you have to wonder why someone would go out and hire a lawyer to buy a domain name. Why couldn't they simply ask on their own?

[mark]

Now, if this lawyer claimed to represent someone, you have to wonder why someone would go out and hire a lawyer to buy a domain name. Why couldn't they simply ask on their own?[/QUOTE]
---------------------

John: Actually this part does not surprise me. I have met and know people who hire attorneys for anything they are not familiar with, no matter how trivial or simple the task may be; although as you indicated, this person may have other motives.

[Anthony Ng]

I too have sold domains to third parties buying through law firms.

[jberryhill]

John: Actually this part does not surprise me. I have met and know people who hire attorneys for anything they are not familiar with, no matter how trivial or simple the task may be; although as you indicated, this person may have other motives.

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. I too have seen it happen. It does call for checking whether there might be a TM problem, and checking out whom the attorney may have represented in the past.

[DaddyHalbucks]

JB wrote:

What this boils down to, if you receive a communication from a Pennsylvania attorney stating, "I would like to buy your domain name" is that the Pennsylvania attorney had better darn well be expressing his or her own personal interest in buying the domain name. If that attorney is in fact representing a client with an adverse interest to yours, and has failed to disclose that fact, then that attorney can be subject to disciplinary action.

State rules vary, and the analysis would vary according to the state. Some state's rules, such as Minnesota, are more explicit in the duty of the lawyer to clearly disclose that he or she is acting in a representative capacity with a client having an adverse interest, and some states are not.
+++++++++++++++

How about California?

I recall hearing years ago about a LA lawyer who bought BOB.COM for an undisclosed client for $10,000.

The undisclosed client later turned out to be a software company in Redmond, WA.

[DomainEngineer]

Good info.

Thanks,

[jberryhill]

Michigan:
http://www.michbar.org/professional/pdfs/mrpc.pdf

California:
http://www.calbar.ca.gov/state/calba...=10158&id=3422

[Ovicide]

When people ask about buying one of my names, I now tell them bluntly that the name isn't for sale, because I'm using it.

A serious buyer will make an offer anyway. The UDRP artists will continue playing games.

The first time I tried that, the person started off at at $500, and went up to $2,500, with me telling him each time that the name isn't for sale.

[Dave Zan]

The first time I tried that, the person started off at at $500, and went up to $2,500, with me telling him each time that the name isn't for sale.

So what eventually happened?

[HOWARD]

Florida Bar Rules are similar
http://www.flabar.org/divexe/rrtfb.n...8?OpenDocument

[Ovicide]

So what eventually happened?

I don't consider $2,500 to be enough money, and so didn't sell it. A few weeks later, the guy bought an inferior (and longer) name from one of the well-known domain vendors.

My reasoning is that anyone who has a business need for that particular name can afford more than $2,500.

[anony]

Will any domain attorney on this forum be willing to negotiate the domain price/sale with the buyer (another attorney as I mentioned above)?

I will pay 30% of the net sale value ( net value = total sale price minus escrow fees if any) for the service.

Please note that I have not responded to the offer so far, and I am not sure about the value of the domain. Its a decent insurance name and should have good value imo.

Please PM if interested.

Thanks,

Anony.

[anony]

Well here is the latest situation:

I never responded to the 'buy offer' from the trademark attorney (see details in the original message).

Today, I received an email copy of the UDRP complaint from the same attorney.

I will just ignore the UDRP as I have no idea what to say or argue and I can't afford to hire attorney for this domain as it hardly makes 10 cents a day on the parking page. In fact, this domain has made about 2 dollars in two months so I will just ignore the UDRP or may be just write back to the arbitrator a simple paragraph explaining that complainant is trying to get my domain in bad faith.

So lets see what happens!!!

PS: Thanks to all the PMs that offered me help. Really appreciate all that. I am still thinking about it and need couple of days but look like I will most likely do as I said above as this domain does not justify the expense of fighting back.

Regards,

[anony]

Here is another surprise:

On 1/11/2005, I received from this lawyer a "cc" copy of the UDRP case e-mail.
I was wondering why didn't I get the e-mail notification from the arb-forum.com as of yet.

So today (1/13/2005), I went to search the arb-forum.com site and found that no such case exist for my domain name.

Now I am wondering if this UDRP is just delayed by arb-forum (due to someone on leave etc) or it was just a hoax kind of thing from the attorney.

Lets see how it unfolds and I will decide my response then.

Thanks.