Oasis.com: Another Creative Agency Tries to Grab Generic Domain Name
Wednesday, April 21st, 2010
What’s up with online creative agencies?
On the one hand, it’s great to see that creative agencies are starting to “get” the importance of having a good, easy-to-remember domain name. There was Media Rain, a Utah digital creative agency that tried to get the domain name Rain.com. Now we can also add Oasis Technology Partners, Inc to the list. The Boston company tried to snag the domain name Oasis.com through UDRP. It too has failed.
Oasis Technology Partners fell flat on its face, not even convincing the panel that it had rights to the term “Oasis”. The company has filed a trademark application for Oasis claiming a first use in 2001. Since that trademark hasn’t been granted, it needed to show some sort of common law rights. This is usually a very low bar.
Even if the company had shown rights to the term “Oasis”, it would have had a tough time trying to prove that the domain was registered in bad faith and that the owner had no rights or legitimate interests in it. After all, when I saw this case filed I assumed the rock band Oasis was the complainant.
The bottom line to Oasis Technology Partners: if you want this valuable, generic domain name, you’re just going to have to pay for it. Trying to hijack it through arbitration isn’t right.
Further Reading:
- Insurance Company Loses Generic Domain Name Land Grab
- A Creative Three-Way Domain Name Deal
- Microsoft to Harness Generic Domain CashBack.com for Search
Tags: udrp
Great!
I love it when a thief like Oasis Technology Partners, Inc gets beaten down.
Scan Twitter posts for the terms
“domain squatting/er/s” and you will find many individuals who believe domaining (registering a domain purely with the intent to resell at a higher price) is not a legitimate business activity and consequently should be banned…
I handled this response for the client. We specifically asked for a RDNH finding. I was surprised that the panel did not even mention RDNH particularly given their findings concerning the total lack of evidence on the TM and the how difficult it would be to provide it given the generic nature of the term.
I am the owner of oasis.com. I do consider this to be a reverse domain name hijack attempt, purely and simply. They asked me if I would sell them the domain last year, to which I replied “not for sale”. Presumably feeling spited, they then filed for the trademark and attempted to use it as evidence of their supposed rights to the domain.
They even concealed their identity with the original enquiry, using an agency who seemingly specialise in RDNH attempts (Marksmen, Inc). From the Marksmen website:
“We feature a team of domain negotiating rock stars who cajole, inveigle, haggle, coax and arm twist for the IP you need competently and successfully while keeping your identity a secret…”
I’m very glad its over. I can’t deny that there is some significant stress involved when dealing with a UDRP. In the back of your mind you do wonder if common sense will prevail. I’ve been lucky this time, others have not always been so fortunate despite similar circumstances.
I’m not sure when James acquired this domain but it was initially reg’d in 1993.
An Oldie but Goodie!!!
I’m impressed all three panelist totally agreed without a dissent.
Paul wins another one. Great job.
@ Paul – sure seemed like the panel wanted to decide the case and grab its money. To find RDNH they probably would have felt compelled to consider the other two elements of the case.
Would also like to thank Paul here for his brilliant handling of the case.
Obviously we are epidemic of Reverse Domain Hijacking. This is what ICANN should be addressing at it’s far flung meetings.
@ James,
Congratulations to you and Paul on winning the UDRP and keeping this generic domain name.
One note, I have had numerous dealings with Marksmen Inc. over the years, including several big ticket domain sales to them (for their clients), and in every instance they have been a very good company to deal with. I am not saying that you didn’t have a bad experience with them, but that may have been the exception rather than the norm.
Just a clarification. Although the article states that they’re a Boston company, the company that attempted to hijack oasis.com also has two other locations.
From the contacts page of Oasis Technology Partners at agencyoasis.com:
Oasis Boston
175 Portland Street
4th Floor
Boston, MA 02114
Phone 617-848-5435
Oasis New York
405 Lexington Avenue
25th Floor
New York, NY 10174
Phone 212-907-6545
Oasis San Francisco
340 Bryant Street
San Francisco, CA 94107
Phone 415-227-4500
Business Development
Robert Naughton
212-907-6545
rnaughton@agencyoasis.com
I’m curious whether the correspondence with Marksmen was used in the complaint as evidence to sell the domain name to the complainant. I thought Marksmen wasn’t doing that anymore.
The problem with use of that type of evidence, where a third party tries to purchase for an anonymous client, is that it demonstrates that the domain registrant didn’t even know who was interested in buying it. That kind of takes the floor out from under it being “sale to the complainant or a competitor of the complainant” if you reflect on that for a moment.
You can’t be trying to sell it to the complainant if you don’t know who is trying to buy it.
Don’t sit back and relax just yet, James. I’m planning to file a UDRP of my own very soon.
My company is Oasis Productions, Inc. We have been producing and maintaining all of the man-made oases in deserts around the world for thousands of years. Far longer than you’ve been registrant of this particular domain.
I’m sure you understand our position.
(Congrats on your win.)
I remember seeing this domain at auction a year or two ago at one of the live Moniker auctions. I don’t remember the sale price but thought it was rather cheap (under $20k) and wish I bid on it.
I’m also not sure why James didn’t want to sell it (if he is the owner). It’s just parked.
James, did the person who contacted you to buy the domain last year have the last name of Newbold?
I am the President of Marksmen. We have been unfairly characterized by James. We were not hired to facilitate RDNH. Our total involvement in this process was one email asking if the domain was for sale. What happened after that had nothing to do with us and was done without our knowledge or participation.
In terms of the language of our website, it is written with humor and irony in addition to describing our services, hence words like “cajole” and “inveigle”.
Ken Taylor – weak rebuttal.
Marksmen has a long history of assisting companies wanting to entrap a domain owner so bad faith can be demonstrated in an UDRP case.
@Ken Taylor, the wording on your website did indeed lead me to (wrongly) assume you may have had more of an active role in the formulation of the complaint. I’m sorry if I unfairly characterised you here.
“Marksmen has a long history of assisting companies wanting to entrap a domain owner so bad faith can be demonstrated in an UDRP case.”
Well, that’s the reason for my as-yet unanswered question to James. If that was not part of the complainant’s case, then this would not seem to be part of that history. Marksmen used to do that sort of thing, but I haven’t seen an instance of it lately.
“Marksmen used to do that sort of thing, but I haven’t seen an instance of it lately.”
John,
I don’t know what services they presently offer.
But, as I said, they did that in the past.
Now, there are a number of companies/services that will assist corporate lawyers in acquiring a domain cheaply or gather evidence for a UDRP filing or federal suit.
FWIW I accept Ken’s earlier comment that, to his knowledge at least, Marksmen was not recruited merely for the purposes of assisting with a UDRP. However (and to answer John’s question) the email communication with Marksmen was indeed referred to in the Complaint as “evidence” of supposed bad faith on my part. This is despite saying the domain was not for sale (as I do/did indeed have plans for it), although perhaps I made the mistake of also suggesting a price range which might persuade me to cancel any plans.
I actually had no further emails from Marksmen either to thank me for the information or to say that they’d speak to their client and come back to me. Then a few months later the UDRP email came through.
The complaint contained a declaration from one Lysha Montiel, an employee of Marksmen. The declaration read as if the defendant were attempting to sell the name for a ransom price. She neglected to even reference her prior email which she had sent from a dummy email account and which did not identify the alleged tm holder or that their offer was unsolicited.
I have no problem with Marksmen or others providing legitimate services. I do object to the above type of misleading declaration in which selective facts are set forth with the goal of supporting a particular view. If Marksmen wishes to provide declarations it should do so in a transparent manner limited to objective statements of all facts.
Wait a minute. Ken from Marksman wrote:
“Our total involvement in this process was one email asking if the domain was for sale. What happened after that had nothing to do with us and was done without our knowledge or participation.”
Yet Paul, the lawyer on the case, says the complaint included:
“The complaint contained a declaration from one Lysha Montiel, an employee of Marksmen.”
Was this just an email to the complainant stating a high price, or was it a signed declaration related to the UDRP?
Andrew, Paul has provided me a copy of the Montiel Declaration, because I find interesting Ken’s statement of Marksmen’s “total involvement” and subsequent events were “without our knowledge or participation”.
It is a signed declaration of Lysha Montiel dated February 9, 2010, and swearing to limited facts about the email exchange conducted in October 2009.
So, Ken, (a) is Lysha Montiel moonlighting on her own account, and making declarations about company business on her own time without management’s knowledge (b) are you uninformed, or (c) are you lying?
Why do you think she was asked for a sworn statement some five months after the email in question, and how do you honestly characterize that as your company’s “total involvement” and that any subsequent events were without your company’s knowledge or participation?
In answer to your other question, Andrew, the email itself is not included by Montiel, and necessarily would not have been to the complainant, but to the dummy email address she was using. Further, James is from the UK, but she quotes him as stating a dollar figure (in a direct quote to which she has sworn).
And, Ken, I agree with Paul, you can conduct whatever business you like. But don’t come here saying that your company’s “total involvement in this process was one email”.
Your employee submitted, speaking as a Marksmen employee, a sworn declaration five months later with a set of highly selective facts. That is a lot more than “one email” and your statement is blatantly not true.
oasis.com has been legitimately acquired by Oasis Active (www.oasisactive.com) which is a massive free dating site based in Australia.