Domain Name Wire

Domain Name Wire

  • DomainSkate offers templated UDRP complaints for $399

    1. BY - Apr 23, 2013
    2. Policy & Law
    3. 17 Comments

    Low cost service prepares UDRP filing to submit to National Arbitration Forum.

    DomainSkate lets anyone create a UDRP complaint. Users would be wise to have the complaint reviewed by an attorney before submitting it.

    DomainSkate lets anyone create a UDRP complaint. Users would be wise to have the complaint reviewed by an attorney before submitting it.

    The biggest cost of filing or responding to a UDRP isn’t paying fees to National Arbitration Forum or WIPO. It’s typically the lawyer’s fees that add up to the most.

    DomainSkate aims to change that by offering a low cost way to compile the necessary information and create an actual UDRP filing that may be filed at National Arbitration Forum.

    The cost: just $399.

    Essentially, DomainSkate walks you through a series of questions regarding your claim and then creates a form complaint and declaration. Think of it as similar to using TurboTax, except that you’re being asked for statements rather than numbers (which is a big difference, frankly).

    I just went through the questionnaire, which seems to hit on all of the hot topics you’ll see in a UDRP (the domain was used for a parked page, it was registered after I got my trademark, etc.).

    Once you complete the questionnaire, a non-attorney staff member will review it for completeness and provide you with your complaint within a day. You can then bring the complaint to an attorney. Or for $600 more, a lawyer will review your dispute.

    A templated approach to UDRP filings is nothing new. After all, UDRP lawyers on both sides of the table have templates they use when formulating complaints and responses. But it’s the legal review portion that’s most important. When you start using templates without a reasonable review, the results can be damaging.

    Which brings me to my big concern with DomainSkate. The ideal customer for DomainSkate is someone who hasn’t filed a UDRP before. Which is exactly the type of company that needs a lawyer, since they’re less likely to understand the requirements of winning a case. A misguided complaint can land you on the receiving end of a federal lawsuit, which means the money you saved up front wasn’t worth it.

17 Comments
  • Very well written.

    The motives of DomainSkate are good, but the methodology is not. They’ll need to figure another way out for this to work!

  • We’re reaching out to try to clarify some of these points offline. We’d love to have a further conversation about DomainSkate. – David Mitnick, CEO, and Howard Greenstein, COO, DomainSkate

  • Bindal,
    If you’d like to learn more and review the system yourself, please get in touch.

  • John Berryhill says:

    April 23, 2013 at 3:47 pm

    Their FAQ refers to:

    “a non-exclusive attorney partner”

    So, apparently, they believe they are in partnership with an attorney. Oddly, no state allows a non-attorney to partner with an attorney in the provision of legal services.

  • Hi John, first I must say that I followed a number of your cases, so its nice to correspond with you. You are right about the comment though we are not using the term “partner” in that context – i.e., we were referring to it from the user’s perspective, but its a very good point and we are going to revise the wording to eliminate any confusion.

    Thanks, David.

  • John Berryhill says:

    April 23, 2013 at 4:08 pm

    From the FAQ:

    “a UDRP is generally much faster than a lawsuit – a decision is generally rendered just weeks from the initial filing and, by statute, 14 days from the date the arbitrator (or panel) is convened.”

    What “statute” might that be, David?

  • The reference is to the Dispute Resolution policy, pursuant to par’s 6 and 15. I will make it more explicit and refer to the Policy.

  • John Berryhill says:

    April 23, 2013 at 5:10 pm

    Yeah, it might be a good idea to know the difference between a statute and a contract provision.

  • As Berryhill is quickly making clear, these guys need to hire their own attorney to make everything legal and accurate.

    Reminds me of LegalZoom … who largely also relies on those … most in need for an attorney to help them.

    By the time you realize you’ve mad a mistake … it’s too late to do anything about it.

  • I love John Berryhill. He takes no prisoners with his biting candor. No Soup For You !

  • David may find himself being his own customer…

    Domainskates.com

  • “Yeah, it might be a good idea to know the difference between a statute and a contract provision.”

    “David may find himself being his own customer…
    Domainskates.com”

    Classic!

    Reminds me of a friend who owed over 100K in income taxes from a real estate short sale, He paid a CPA $500 and instead of owing 100K, he got money back!

    Bottom line, professionals are worth their weight in Gold, and only a fool would rely on a do-it-yourself program… When your ass is on the line, you call in the pros!

  • Do yourself a big favor and call a respected attorney in the field. I think you will find the best right here on this page.

  • John,

    I think you need to cut them some slack. My fiance has a cat. Sometimes I call him partner, and I totally share profits with him. Does that mean that I’m suddenly violating some ethical “rule”? If I believe that the UDRP is a statute, that’s my opinion. You have your opinion and I have mine. I know it in my gut. Templates are the future, and the future is yesterday, which is where I want to be tomorrow. It’s a relief that someone has finally reduced the UDRP process to a simple template process because everyone knows that no thought or skill is involved in winning a UDRP.

  • I don’t pretend to know the marketplace for template services in UDRP disputes but I betcha Mitnick did some research on the marketplace before he developed his product.

  • My suspicion is that much of the ill will in these comments stems from a conflict of interest and concern for the writer’s own stream of income. Pretty transparent.

    This seems like an interesting concept and product and probably needs a little refining after it’s out of the gate. As a practicing IP attorney, I’m inclined to give it a try.

  • I think Berryhill needs DomainSkate!

    http://johnberryhillrestaurants.com/

Leave a Reply