Does it deserve a response ?

[URLtrader]

Hi ,

I have received a message regarding one of my best names which I snapped few weeks ago. It reads :--

"Regarding domain name: xxxxxxxxxxxxx.com

This domain was transfered away from me due to an admin error (basically the fee was not taken during a transfer and the name lapsed). I have been told that the only way I can now retrieve it is to involve lawyers or buy it back. I offered $250 which seems a fair price, and since no one else has bid for it I wondered if you would be prepared to sell it back to me for the $250 offered. I am not going to increase my offer because it was a secondary domain but it would be nice to get it back if possible. Thanks."

This guy offered me $250 and I asked for $10000. Should I send
response to this message. If yes, what kind of.

Thanks in advance.

URLtrader

 

[Mr Webname]

"I am not going to increase my offer because it was a secondary domain but it would be nice to get it back if possible."

Seems like he isn't that fussed if he doesn't get it back and it's not worth more than $250 to him. If it's your best name and you want more than $250 that's end of story as far as he's concerned I would have thought.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

Does it "deserve a response"?

That can depend on whether your business is to deal with domain names or to accumulate pen pals. As Mr. Webname notes, this person has made an admission that the domain name is not very important to him.

If he perceives his options as "pay $250" or "involve lawyers", I want to know where he's going to find a lawyer for $250.

 

[URLtrader]

Originally posted by jberryhill
If he perceives his options as "pay $250" or "involve lawyers", I want to know where he's going to find a lawyer for $250.

Exactly. That is why I asked if it deserve a response. This guy claims he lost a domain due to negligence on someone,s part (not mine atleast) , makes offer of $250 for a domain which has overture count of more than 12000 in Sep 2003. Advertisers are paying upto $1.09 per click for those searching for this name. And there are more than 30 advertisers paying for clicks between $0.05 and $1.09 .

Based on 5% click through rate the highest advertiser is paying about $ 654 per month or $7848 per year without actually owing this name.

And he wants it for $250. Or he will hire an attorney for a domain he thinks is worth $250 ? He is grossly underestimating the value of this domain as well as an attorney.

jberryhill , it is a generic , descriptive domain. Assuming that he actually was its registrant in the past, does he have the right to claim it ? Thanks in advance.

URLtrader

 

[LewR]

Many people threaten to sue when they don't get their own way. "I'll call my lawyer if you don't give me what I want." It's like the lawyer who opened up a Chinese food restaurant near me and named it "SoSueMe". - LOL (He came from the law firm of Dewey, Dickum and Howe) **RimShot**

Let him call his lawyer, I would not even respond - the loser of a domain name NEVER wants to admit their responsibility in the situation nor pay the value of the domain to reclaim it.

Don't waste your time.

 

[jberryhilljberryhill is verified member.]

"jberryhill , it is a generic , descriptive domain. Assuming that he actually was its registrant in the past, does he have the right to claim it ? Thanks in advance. "

I don't know who he is, or what the domain name is. You might compare your situation to one of these cases:


http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-1167.html

According to a chronology apparently sent by Complainant to Network Solutions, as at July 23, 2002, the disputed domain name was registered in the name Dave Gullo Services. . Shortly thereafter a change in registrant name to the name of Complainant was effected and Complainant paid for renewal of the registration, which was due to expire on September 13, 2002. . After some confusion apparently caused by the registrant name change, Complainant’s money was refunded, Complainant paid a second time, Network Solutions confirmed renewal until September, 2005 but the disputed domain name nevertheless became publicly available and was registered in the name of Respondent on October 21, 2002.


http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/114434.htm

The Respondent capitalized on an error, whether knowingly or not, in the transfer process at the time said domain name was due for renewal. The Complainant had no intention to abandon the disputed domain name.


http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2002/d2002-0189.html

The Complainant’s registration for <paparazzo.com> had been cancelled allegedly for non-payment of registration fees. The name was then acquired by the Respondent.

 

[URLtrader]

LewR , jberryhill and Mr Webname,

Thanks to all of you for your comments and information.

URLtrader