xi.com - stolen by former employee

[.biz]

Respondent acquired the domain name <xi.com> on or about January 22, 2004. Respondent David Chrin worked for Cambridge until May 31, 2001. During that time he was listed as the administrative contact for the domain name. Respondent Chrin has sued Cambridge for violations of employment law seeking damages and received a small award. It appears this dispute is ongoing.

and toho almost get himself into a stolen domain again

On January 26, 2004, Satoshi Shimoshita became listed as the registrant for the domain name. It appears that Shimoshita intended to purchase the domain name, but withdrew when ownership of the domain name was questioned.

Full WIPO case:
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2004-0253.html

[actnow]

It is good to hear that a major problem was avoided by Toho.

[domnet]

Someone should establish a list of suspicious domains to avoid that all members can contribute to...It would be nice if you were about to make a large purchase and could check to see if any members have suggested avoiding that domain.

[JuniperPark]

This name was listed for sale right here at DNF:

http://www.dnforum.com/showthread.ph...ghlight=xi.com

[toho]

xi.com was stolen domain.
Before closed transaction thru Escrow.com, OpenSRS (TUCOWS) notified me.
Their correspondence was very proper and kind.
Even Escrow.com, they were cooperative.
My damage was finished with a hundred dollar thanks to them.
Escrow.com refund to me. OpenSRS changed status ON-HOLD for xi.com

After the problem of KS.com happened, eNom and AfterNIC didn't try what one me to help.

http://dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=...ht=indiana.com

It looks they are busy for post "Just Updated..." to other thread.
http://dnforum.com/showthread.php?t=47502


Be the past now...



toho

[jberryhill]

http://www.arb-forum.com/domains/decisions/263584.htm

"Moreover, the instant case is essentially a dispute that revolves around Complainants’ contention of fraud and theft by Respondent relating to the disputed domain name registration. The Policy was designed to curb the online activity referred to as “cybersquatting” in order to facilitate and protect the growing Internet-based commercial activity conducted by trademark and service mark holders. Therefore, since the instant case does not involve the practice of cybersquatting and is more accurately described as a fraudulent registration transfer, the Panel finds that this dispute may be more suitable in a court of law as it exceeds the scope of the Policy."

[Steen]

Toho, you seem to be good at buying stolen domains.

[toho]

Better than good at selling stolen domains.

But I had only KS.com


toho

[Steen]

Better than good at selling stolen domains.

But I had only KS.com


toho

So true
Sorry for the confusion.