Kinko.com maybe brings $20,100. at Enom?!?

[Digital Address]

"Das ist v-e-r-y interesting!"

Done deal!!

 

[David G]

Not finalized yet though! "Das ist v-e-r-y interesting!"

Just a guess but similar to airborneexpress.com auction for $16000 I feel the name is very likely a WIPO complaint. It would seem Kinkos could easily claim confusion with its name, especially if offering similar service and products.

 

[Whois-Search]

Another Enom Quick Buck at the expense of others.

 

[Theo]

Another Enom Quick Buck at the expense of others.

Would the "out of pocket" expenses be covered to the full amount paid to Enom drop club?

 

[cambler]

Another Enom Quick Buck at the expense of others.

I'm sure I have no idea what you're talking about. At the expense of what others?

The name dropped, and someone bought it. I fail to see from whence comes your ire.

 

[Whois-Search]

Fact is Enom registered a trademark and made money from that trademark.

But your gonna take the 20k and change the whois quick

 

[cambler]

Fact is Enom registered a trademark and made money from that trademark.

But your gonna take the 20k and change the whois quick

The fact is, that's the system that's set up, and thos are the rules. If you don't like the rules, you should show up at an ICANN meeting and bring it up. The individual who bids on a trademarked name is no different than the individual who buys one at regfee outside of the drop. Either way, they're liable to be on the receiving end of a UDRP. That's their risk, and they take it, knowingly.

eNom made no money from any trademark. The customers wanted the name and were willing to pay for the service of getting it for them.

I sincerely fail to see how you're harmed in all of this, much less the Internet as a whole. Educate me?

 

[clemzonguy]

I'm sure I have no idea what you're talking about. At the expense of what others?

This wasn't a $6.95 registration. ENOM did indeed profit from the well known trademark Kinko's (this point is hard to dispute because even overture numbers are based on the confusing name).....however I would say the burden of proof is with the URDP which FEDex will win. I'm sure both parties could be included in a legal suit. This could open a large door (at some point) as far as which names we could and couldn't bid on in the future and I would hate for it to get to that point.....but even if it did I doubt there would be much discrimination at the registrar level although there probably should be on sales over $1,000. Cambler states "The customers wanted the name and were willing to pay for the service of getting it for them." I don't really see a registrar as an innocent bystander in this case with a blind eye, but yet an active participant.

Berryhill what do you think? d

 

[cambler]

Clemzonguy, by your logic, a registrar must police for trademarks on all registrations, irrespective of price. The law does not distinguish based on price. Thankfully, the UDRP provides for this issue. If any domain is in violation, and the case is won by the complaintant, the registrar will be compelled to act as ordered by the panel.

If you feel that this policy is wrong in any way, I'd be happy to put you in touch with the ICANN staff member responsible for UDRP issues and provide you with an introduction.

A registrar has never been held responsible for the acts of the users, even in cases where the acts were paid services, much like you can't sue an ISP if one of their customers is breaking the law. The ISP must act on the orders of law enforcement. In parallel, registrars must act on the orders of ICANN and/or the UDRP panel.

 

[clemzonguy]

Maybe Verisign can police it since they maintain the registry and all :evil:

 

[Theo]

There's plenty of food for thought though: if you lose a UDRP based on the facts stated above, along with $20k that went to the Registrar, can you then sue the Registrar to claim that money back?

 

[cambler]

There's plenty of food for thought though: if you lose a UDRP based on the facts stated above, along with $20k that went to the Registrar, can you then sue the Registrar to claim that money back?

I think that's a very good legal question. I, personally, don't think so - but I'm not a lawyer. But that question has me interested enough that I think I'm going to ask a lawyer.

For that matter, we need a subject-matter expert. Hey! Berryhill!?

 

[Theo]

It seems unrelated, however once I paid a hefty sum for an AMD CPU to an online store. The manufacturer, AMD, dropped the prices by more than 70% two days later. I was furious. Complained to the store, citing profiteering. They didn't budge, however my 'whining' got me a phonecall from AMD's regional distributor. I explained the problem and they shipped me a CPU that was worth the price difference, free of charge, which I then sold on ebay.

Hm not sure where I was getting with this :-D

 

[NameWolf]

>can you then sue the Registrar to claim that money back?

I do not think so. Enom as well as all registars under similar circumstances will have different remarks squeezed somewhere in their TOS, etc. to get rid of any responsibility with a situation like that.

 

[clemzonguy]

Enom as well as all registars under similar circumstances will have different remarks squeezed somewhere in their TOS, etc. to get rid of any responsibility with a situation like that.

This goes beyond simple registration fees of a domain. A simple agreement beteween the registrar and the bidder doesn't circumvent law that may exist or a decision that can be handed down. That would be like me robbing a bank (at the expense of someone else) but saying okay I had an agreement ahead of time with the bank owner that he wouldn't stop me and handed me the keys and even told me what time to come. The law would still hold both parties accountable. Enom and other registrars routinely enter into these types of activities knowingly and willingly. I believe given the right court situation a judge would side with FEDex on this matter and hold both parties responsible. This is not as solid as LEGOS.COM case but still food for thought. This will hurt the industry as a whole (the rest of us) for the short term gain of a few (registars) in my opinion.

 

[Whois-Search]

If you bought 20k of drugs and got caught.

the drug dealer would get done to.

 

[cambler]

Drugs are criminally illegal. Domains are not - even trademark violations are not. Apples and oranges, sir.

 

[Theo]

:-D but domains are addictive too!

 

[domnet]

This wasn't a $6.95 registration. ENOM did indeed profit from the well known trademark Kinko's (this point is hard to dispute because even overture numbers are based on the confusing name).....however I would say the burden of proof is with the URDP which FEDex will win. I'm sure both parties could be included in a legal suit. This could open a large door (at some point) as far as which names we could and couldn't bid on in the future and I would hate for it to get to that point.....but even if it did I doubt there would be much discrimination at the registrar level although there probably should be on sales over $1,000. Cambler states "The customers wanted the name and were willing to pay for the service of getting it for them." I don't really see a registrar as an innocent bystander in this case with a blind eye, but yet an active participant.
d

Bird v. Parsons
Opinion

 

[Whois-Search]

The domain became new again when it dropped and Enom regged it in bad faith.

The domain doesn't even have any whois at the moment because the register isn't even developed.

Also if the owner does get sued then the accounts and bank accounts of both parties will show a transfer of 20k for the name.

they still made 20k out of the trademark because if it had been flgkdflghgj.com would have been worth nothing