Company blames domain name registrar that received proceeds of transaction in its bank account.
National A-1, a large buyer of premium domain names, is fighting in court to recover $35,000 it paid to buy the Walk.com domain name. After it paid for the domain name it found out the name was stolen.
According to National A-1’s complaint, it was contacted by the supposed owner of the domain name in April of this year. It struck a deal to purchase the domain for $35,000 and used Escrow.com to handle the transaction.
After the domain was transferred and the funds released, the “real” owner of the domain contacted National A-1 and informed it that the domain had been stolen.
Walk.com’s owner said the domain was hijacked out of his GoDaddy account and transferred to an account at Melbourne IT, where it was subsequently transferred to National A-1.
National A-1 later found out that the account that received the funds from Escrow.com was registered in the name of OnlineNIC, a domain registrar that has faced heavyweight cybersquatting battles from Microsoft and Verizon.
For its part, OnlineNIC says that an “unknown perpetrator” caused the money to be transferred to OnlineNIC’s account.
This case will be interesting to watch.
lassy says
For 35K they should have known something is fishy and do their homework before releasing funds. No brainer.
Samit Madan says
If it was an “unknown perpetrator” they should just refund the money, don’t see why it should be a problem.
Domain owner gets the domain, National A-1 gets it’s cash back, all good.
Or am I missing something?
RaTHeaD says
i’ve had the same problem… unknown perpetrators are constantly putting large amounts of cash in my bank account. sheeeeeesh.
Louise says
“Walk.com’s owner said the domain was hijacked out of his GoDaddy account . . .”
Surprise, surprise.
page howe says
so this takes us back to the TRAFFIC 2010 duscussion on theft, is a name property, or license and right to renew.
if i remember at the time
one goes back – property, new buyer is out
one doesnt – license and right to renew, victim of theft has to get recourse from thief
i think there was even state, fed differcne at the time
Greg says
OnlineNic has shielded domain thieves before. No surprise.
Gavin says
Greg, as I know, OnlineNIC is a victim in this fraud transaction, the “real ” owner steal the money in the name of OnlineNIC. What I am curious is about the transaction process at Escrow. How can Escrow release the money to the ” real ” domain owner without confirming the real domain has been transfered to buyer successfully?
Andrew Allemann says
@ Gavin – the real domain was transferred to the buyer successfully…they just had to give it back later.
The question is why a thief would have money sent to OnlineNIC. How would he ever recover it? Seems like a lot of work just to piss off a couple parties for no gain.