Another day, another UDRP on a three letter domain name.
Sadly, this isn’t an April Fools’ joke.
Francois Carrillo, who runs Domaining.com, has just been hit with a UDRP for the domain name Zut.com.
The complainant is Interbasic Holding S.A., which has a perfume line called Zut.
I think the defense should be pretty straightforward for Carrillo. After all, the guy runs an auction site dedicated solely to three and four letter domain names like zut.com, jef.com, and cafi.com. As far as I can tell the domain hasn’t been parked in a while either; instead forwarding to a sales listing on Catchy.com. Asking price: $120,000.
It doesn’t take a genius to figure out he wasn’t targeting Interbasic Holding with this domain name.
And it may just be that Interbasic is on a reverse domain hijacking spree: it also filed a case for Shocking.com. The company also has a perfume line called Shocking.
Now that’s shocking.
Ron says
And so it begins, panel members make big bucks of filings, companies trying to steal legitimate names, instead of buying them.
Acro says
Zut alors!
Acro says
They also filed a UDRP for elsaschiaparelli.com – They have a tm for Schiaparelli.
This perfume company stinks.
John says
Interbasic Holding S.A. should call their next perfume ” Thievery ” or ” Reverse Hijacking ”
They appear to be backstabbing, scumball, arrogant corporate, butt pirates that don’t know how to be honest.
Interbasic Holding S.A. = Loser, Thieves in my opinion.
Nobody should EVER do business with any of Interbasic Holding S.A. brands.
What a bunch of asshol*s !!!!
I hope Interbasic Holding S.A. realizes they look like thieves. I also wonder how many ” stolen ” domains they have taken away from rightful, honest domain holders?
Sam says
This begs an interesting question – if a third party were to tender an offer of $120k could a deal be consumated? what would become of the UDRP?
theo says
Sam, if correct the domain is being put on registrar hold and the domain name cannot be transfered untill the end of the proceedings.
The current status confirms that Status: clientDeleteProhibited, clientTransferProhibited,
Load of BS though all in all.
Hope Francois wins this one without to much issues.
Adam says
I very dislike Francois Carrillo
This guy has serious emotional problems.
James says
@Adam – comment wholly irrelevant, and sounds like you might consider some counseling yourself.
@Francois – If this is as bogus as SaveMe.com, you may consider similar tactics or teaming up with Rick. Good Luck!
Ron says
NEW UDRP SLOGAN!
Why Buy A Brand, When You Can Steal One!
lassy says
Why Buy A Brand, When You Can hijack One
– More appropriate.
120K for that name is a fair price.
Chad says
More and more people want to steal rather than buy the domains.
There should be a law that penalizes these people.
Now the owner of zut.com has to spend $$$$ just to defend and keep his name.
David J Castello says
@lassy
LOL That was good.
M. Menius says
Same thing for years, i.e. no penalty for reverse domain hijacking. When painful financial consequences are implemented for domain hijacking, the tide will finally change.
Thomas says
Not have to pay a dime to defend, you just need a panelist in this situation.
Drivel says
Been going on for years, not surprised. Unfortunately it de-values an entire industry, and they would have to admit all those decisions in the past were wrong… Also something that will never happen. Disgraceful isn’t even the word. It’s just sad.
@Domains says
First Rick with SaveMe.com, now a very similar situation with Francois and Zut.com. Who of us will be next? It is very important for domainers that both Rick and Francois win these cases.
DomainersChoice.com says
In cases where the panelist(s), find reverse domain hijacking, the respondent should be paid for his/her legal fees, otherwise a reverse domain hijacking finding is useless.
Simon says
Another cheap shot from the pirates out there who think they can abuse the legal system for stealing others property. These cases are getting silly now, are no domains safe anymore when companies think of a name, trademark it and think it gives them rights to the domain name too. Who ever owns ‘daylight’ and ‘robbery’ lookout, fragranced potions could be mixing as we speak. On a serious note companies like this should be named and shamed as it’s no more than online bullying and attempted theft.
Johnny says
As @Domains said : Who of us will be next?
We should do something guys now…
Lets put some ideas for reaction…
Any suggestions ?
edidier says
Zut is ” damn ! ” in French
synonym is “merde”… 🙂
Very good name in French.
owen frager says
He may have a challenge for lack of an essential defense strategy from the gitgo, establish a brand for yourself. A story about your company that’s bigger than your single site. “A Platform that’s an engine for growth.” Then a press release or article about short catchy names and how you identified that niche — off the shelf –as a great cost alternative to creating one. The domain is registered to Cybertonic in France, his server is in Atlanta and his contact is at gandi.net. You can’t find one piece of supporting documentation that shows he’s a real business with a great reputation. So it looks shady and the quality of the blogs on the site have no authority to nor are they backed by big industry sponsors, so it can appear shady. I’ve mentioned so many times how Elliot and others do that so well by establishing a holding company and putting the cosmetics on the footer to make it look like a giant. Every beat back is by people with real whois data, articles in publications or like Rick a website written in 1999 that makes it clear what he saw and why he acted. Hey I am a branding guy and I can tell you that even if it’s a story, at least they don’t think you are a small guy hiding in a cave with no money to fight so they can just take it.
Niklas says
Is it illegal to list reverse hijackers on a site…
domain names and hijackers
Carl Edgar says
“Zut” is a standard exclamation in French – “Zut alors!”
it might translate as “wow” or “you don’t say” or “gosh” – an exclamation perhaps of surprise/approval.
So, seems pretty generic to me.
Carl
Andrew Allemann says
@ Carl – given that Francois is French, there’s another great defense.
Ose says
It is sad that online business is turning
sour this way. Big corporate companies who never had the foresight to start early on the internet, now think they have the big bucks to fight the “early birds”.
Only time will tell!
Thank you.
Stan says
Why would any serious potential domain investors look at buying domains over other asset classes when the chance of getting shafted like this is still around. I really can’t understand why the bigger names in the domain industry don’t pool their resources together and sort this out once and for all. If I was a company and knew nothing about the domain industry why wouldn’t I have a crack at getting the name, the downside is so minimal it just makes good business sense and that perception won’t ever change until the domain industry sorts their sh** out.
Robert says
Hello Fellow Domainers:
This is Great. Now that some of the Big Gun
Domainers with the Big Bucks and High End Lawyers are getting hit, maybe,just maybe,
it will expose the UDRP for it’s neferous
and nimrod decisions against those of us who
lack the capital and resourses to fight these
bandits!! Don’t blame the thief. A good thief
only steals when he thinks he can steal with impunity. Albeit UDRP.
It’s time to expose the UDRP. The internet
is the most powerful equalizer of all time.
It has toppled governments.
Suggestion: Every domainer should blog these injustices and inconsistences on the internet
Remember! You could be next!
Chaslowe says
There should be at least some sort of preliminary screening process to weed out as many frivolous cases as possible … and fine the hell out of them. There have to be deterrents in place. Maybe there already are. ???
Joe A. says
The big questions that I haven’t seen asked here are… When was the domain registered? When was the brand created?
I know it doesn’t always go this way but if Francois registered this domain way before the brand became a brand it should help his case.
Andrew Allemann says
@ Joe A. – brand is actually from 1999, I believe (at least US trademark filing).
Brett Lewis says
Who would wear a perfume called “Zut?” It’s way too close to “zit.” Aside from that, this seems like a pretty aggressive filing.
Attila says
I don’t know, but for $120k I’d rather buy Zlut.com instead and make it a pinterest style site for college guys :-p No pun intended to Francois, love the guy and hope he wins!
jayjay says
They should call their perfume RDNH because all their other brands just stink! 😉
Sam says
@theo
you may be correct in your assesment that the domain cannot be transferred until the UDRP is completed, but I would observe that most domains have a lock status of “clientTransferProhibited”
Eric says
Internet property should be managed just like “real” property. Lets pretend I started a financial company and I really need an office right on Wallstreet but I can’t afford it. If the same rules UDRP uses to take domains apply to real property, then I should just file a lawsuit against the property owner because he/she has space that’s not being used. The asking price is right in line with other similar property but since it’s not being rented out, I can just take it. The property owner is out of luck. Just because he/she decided to get into the real estate business before I got into my financial business, means nothing. Your property is now my property because my business should get it.
Nat Cohen says
For all the commentators and readers who are asking what the Domain Industry is doing about UDRP abuse, the answer is that the Internet Commerce Associate (ICA) has been fighting for years to protect domain owners rights.
We fought to prevent the URS (Uniform Rapid Suspension) from being incorporated into the new gTLD guidebook. The URS would have resulted in loss of rights to a domain through a cookie-cutter review process at a reduced cost of only $300.
Now we are fighting back efforts to add the URS to the Verisign .com agreement renewal. If URS is built into the .Com agreement you will see a surge in abusive filings.
The ICA is also leading the way in fighting for UDRP reform. We are trying to add penalties to RDNH findings, to prevent active trademark attorneys from serving as panelists on cases very similar to ones that they argue themselves on behalf of corporate clients, to prevent forum shopping between WIPO, NAF and other arbitration providers which leads them to pander to Complainants and develop procedures and pick panelists that are as Complainant friendly as possible.
If you want to learn more about the ICA check out http://internetcommerce.org/.
The domainer community has shown very little leadership on these issues. There is a lot of hand-wringing. A lot of complaining that things are unfair. But very little willingness to step up, to become involved, and to contribute to the expensive fight of protecting our rights against the onslaught of big business interests that want to take what we have on the cheap by changing the rules of the game.
I am a long-time supporter of the ICA, and am currently the board member elected by the domainer members. I’d welcome hearing from any of you who would like to learn more and become involved with the ICA.
Thanks.
Lucas says
Really sad that this happened. I have done business with Francois a couple of times in the past. He is professional and friendly. I am sure they will have it tough to prove the domain owner acted in bad faith. Nevertheless, wish him luck with the defense.
Charles says
Slimy thieves.
Robert says
@Nat Cohen
Thank you Sir:
“The domainer community has shown very little leadership on these issues. There is a lot of hand-wringing. A lot of complaining that things are unfair. But very little willingness to step up, to become involved, and to contribute to the expensive fight of protecting our rights against the onslaught of big business interests that want to take what we have on the cheap by changing the rules of the game.”
The only Time you hear from the big guns that
have made millions on domain names (I won’t
mention names) is when they get hit and squeel like stuffed pigs. Where were they when the small domainers were getting screwed by the UDRP?
I personally hope more of them get hit. Then
maybe something will change for the better.
Especially now that they aren’t immune
to the whims of the Dictator State (UDRP)
I still say, don’t blame the thief, blame
the judge in his pocket. Why not steal?
” If your not part of the solution, then your
part of of the problem.”
I will be checking out your site.
Thanks
Robert
Stephen Douglas says
What is even more important here, that everyone has missed, is what if Francois SOLD Zut.com to a company, which then built it’s brand around it and spent millions to promote it?
Would they get hit with a UDRP on ZUT.COM? Or is it just domain investors, who research, analyze, promote and sell the “words and phrases” that other companies wish to own, but don’t want to pay the value of the domain name on the open market?
What if this name “ZUT” was created by an advertising agency, then submitted their “word brand” ZUT to these reverse pirates, and said “for our time and effort creating this brand, we think it’s worth $120k.”
Does Interbasic Holding S.A. sue their ad agency for the name because they had somebody in their marketing department suddenly come up with the name “Zut”?
It’s exactly the same principle suing a domain investor.
Francois, we’re all pulling for you. It’s time that OUR rights were respected, and our efforts and sacrifices were appreciated and legally protected from reverse hijacking attempts. SERIOUS financial sanctions should be applied to any company trying to steal a domain name from its rightful owner.
Charles says
Quoting Robert and his 8:00 AM post above …
“The domainer community has shown very little leadership on these issues. There is a lot of hand-wringing. A lot of complaining that things are unfair. But very little willingness to step up, to become involved, and to contribute to the expensive fight of protecting our rights against the onslaught of big business interests that want to take what we have on the cheap by changing the rules of the game.”
Bull. You just characterized the entire domainer community as a hand-wringing group of complaining whiners. Just what significant percentage of the domaining community are you referring to because surely you wouldn’t make such a sweeping statement without having some data to back it up. And you sure as hell don’t speak for me or my domaining associates. I spend every waking minute of the day domaining and half of that time is spent reading newsletters and blogs learning as much as I can and passing it along to my co-domainers. That’s how this whiner happens to know about Francois’ dilemma
“I still say don’t blame the thief, blame the judge in his pocket. Why not steal?”
I probably don’t need to point out how ridiculous this statement is. I hope for your sake that it’s sarcasm. So you won’t screw me unless I let you. Nice way to live. Sounds like you’re condemning the successful people for being successful. That’s Capitalism and you’ll have to live with it.
”If your not part of the solution, then your part of of the problem.”
And this is a tired, old cliche that’s nothing more than something convenient to say. It’s not at all true but people use it because it sounds a little clever. Then they hope their audience doesn’t stop to think about it.
You didn’t give your audience enough credit.
Well you’ve talked the talk and you say you’re going to walk the walk. Please keep a diary of your contributions to the greater good … ICA in particular, and give us an update every few weeks.
BTW I reviewed the ICA home page and frankly didn’t find that it stirred any fires in me. It looked like a simple blog … imo. Granted I need to go back and spend some more time on it.
Nat Cohen says
@Charles,
The hand-wringing quote you refer to is from my comment (#36) above.
My point is that a lot of people in the domain community recognize that the UDRP is a problem, they want to see it fixed, but so far very few have stepped up to support the one group that is representing domainer interests, which is the ICA.
There is a small group of committed domainers who understand the stakes and are willing to reach into their wallet to support the ICA’s efforts. Several of the parking companies such as Oversee and Sedo are significant contributors as well.
Nearly all of our funds go directly to lobbying ICANN and Capital Hill to protect our rights and to try to stop the constant attempts from the trademark groups to make it easy to snatch domains away from their owners.
It’s a chicken and egg problem. If we had more funds, we could hire an executive director, do more fund raising and have a more attractive web site.
It is very easy to find reasons not to support the ICA. I even wrote a blog post about it:
http://www.domainarts.com/2011/11/04/who-cares-about-the-ica/
But if you are making your living from the domain industry, and you wish to protect your investment in your livelihood, then you owe it to yourself to support the industry’s efforts to protect domain investment as a viable business.
When an issue comes up that is primarily a domainer issue, such as UDRP reform, then who else is going to step up to advocate for us if not domainers ourselves?
If we don’t fight to protect our rights, then our domains will be at risk. If the trademark groups have their way, domain owners will be slammed with a wave of low cost complaints all seeking to take away valuable generic domains, because the domain is similar to a common word that the company has trademarked, or because a link on a parked page links to a competitor.
There is no fairy godmother watching over our industry to make sure no harm comes to us. Instead it is a rough and tumble lobbying battle where policy makers are being fed a constant stream of distorted info from trademark groups, and the ICA is a needed voice to correct the misinformation and to try to steer policy in a less damaging direction.
It is every domainer’s choice – either to support the ICA and its efforts to protect domainers’ rights, or to sit on the sidelines and do nothing but complain about how unfair things are.
Charles says
@ Nat … My comments were directed at Robert. Regarding support for the ICA, we can’t support what we don’t know about. I had never heard of the ICA until you made your post above. UDRP ??? I’ve only known of them for a few months. I promise you that very few, if any, of the domainers I work with on a regular basis have ever heard of ICA or the UDRP.
We spend time and money promoting and trying to protect our interests. I’m sure that many of us would have diverted some of our time and money to ICA had we known of them.
I know that Sedo is a sponsor. That’s wonderful that they donate money. But I’m on their site almost daily and have yet to see any mention of the ICA. If you want to spread awareness to us common domainers you need to be seen on Sedo, NamePros, DNF, GoDaddy. Have you approached people like Ron at NamePros. He needs to have a banner ad on every page. Maybe some of these sites already display information on the ICA and I’ve overlooked it. But getting them to make donations without putting your name on their sites isn’t spreading knowledge of the cause.
So far tonight I’ve seen nothing about ICA on Sedo or NamePros. Someone with experience and credentials needs to be knocking on these doors lobbying for ICA.