Was.net Stolen: Do Not Buy !!!

[Focus]

Good job TOM, way to keep an eye out! I knew you were right on this one!

 

[GAMEFINEST]

Registrant Contact:
register dot com is crooked
**** youall ()
+1.4306660978
Fax:
123 **** you fags
suck, P 66666
US

...now that's putting on the hater camo for sure...ound:

That is hilarious

 

[Deleted member 5660]

Domain was aquired when they bought out a smaller company along with other names...
The company has had the named renewed and taken by a former employee and or the buy out's employee because that employee used a personal email as admin contact all along, never having given it to the current rightful owners...

Sounds to me like a complicated situation and from the information poisted here it is certainly not "proof" that the domain was stolen. If the person was the valid admin contact then it seems they have the legal right to transfer or sell the domain. Now of there was some kind of agtreement (in this case it sounds like a perceived agreement rather than any actual written agreement) then possibly it could be considered stolen. This story sounds like the company screwed up by letting an employee control their domain and now they finally realize what happened so they say it is "stolen." I have no idea what happened in this case but I certainly don't see "proof" of anything one way or the other or any determiniation of who is the "rightful owner."

Whenever someone claims a domain was "stolen" the first thing you ask to see is the police report. When this is asked most people who claim a domain was stolen just shrivel up and go away.

 

[dolansco]

DUH....

Example... ABC.com ... who controls the domain ? an employee ... right ....

Its not his/her domain ... but they are in a position to steal it !

regards was.net , its a very simple story ....
..... an (ex)employee stole the domain ... end of story ...

Amen




PS ... your choice of words is good ... "valid admin" ... if the guy does not own the domain , but has control of it , then he is not the valid admin in theory

 

[TheLegendaryJP]

DUH....

Example... ABC.com ... who controls the domain ? an employee ... right ....

Its not his/her domain ... but they are in a position to steal it !

regards was.net , its a very simple story ....
..... an (ex)employee stole the domain ... end of story ...

Amen




PS ... your choice of words is good ... "valid admin" ... if the guy does not own the domain , but has control of it , then he is not the valid admin in theory

Exactly, the name was stolen, the owner of a car dealership may let one employee hold all the keys ( sign for them etc ) to the cars but it certainly doesnt give that employee the right to drive off forever with a car. Access is in no way a justification to steal something you did not pay for and is rightfully the property of the company as outlined in a purchase agreement.

Now this case is somewhat different as it was a hijack potentially by a former employee of the former owner.

 

[Deleted member 5660]

DUH....

Example... ABC.com ... who controls the domain ? an employee ... right ....

Its not his/her domain ... but they are in a position to steal it !

regards was.net , its a very simple story ....
..... an (ex)employee stole the domain ... end of story ...

Amen




PS ... your choice of words is good ... "valid admin" ... if the guy does not own the domain , but has control of it , then he is not the valid admin in theory

The point is that you don't really know what happened or what agreements were made. Maybe the employee owns the domain and let the company use it while he worked there. There are a few UDRP's where there was a falling out between business partners. One prime example is MTV.com. The domain was owned and operated by one of their employees. After they fired him MTV realized the former employee owned the domain and they bought it from him. My point with the admin contact is that for some reason the admin contact was permitted to have the the employee's personal info apparently over a long period of time. Maybe this was a mistake by the company, but maybe there was some other reason. I don't know the true reason and I don't think anyone posting here knows either.


MTV case:

http://www.loundy.com/CASES/MTV_v_Curry.html