Domain names will be auctioned off at TRAFFIC in October if court approves.
Assuming court approval, Rick Latona has scored a coup by getting rights to auction off the remaining domain names owned by John Zuccarini to satisfy a court judgment and U.S. tax lien.
After losing a cybersquatting case to Office Depot, Zuccarini’s domain names were handed to a receiver. That receiver has had his share of challenges, including letting some of the domain names expire. But now the receiver is recommending the remaining domain names be auctioned off at TRAFFIC in Florida this October.
From the proposed order (pdf):
After researching the industry, consulting with Zuccarini, and interviewing multiple domain name auction houses, the Receiver developed an auction strategy to maximize the proceeds from the sale of the Domain Holdings. (Blacksburg Decl. 5- 9.) Specifically, the Receiver determined that the most prominent domain auction in the upcoming twenty-four months is the auction at the T.R.A.F.F.I.C. Domain Conference & Expo, in Miami, Florida, on October 19, 2010, to be held in conjunction with Latona’s Brokerage & Auction House (hereinafter, the “Auctioneerâ€). (Id. 6.) T.R.A.F.F.I.C. is considered to be the domain industry’s premier conference, attracting attendees that control over 20 million domain names with 50 million daily unique visitors. (Id. 7.) Latona’s Brokerage & Auction House is considered to be one of the most prominent auction houses for valuable domain names, and is the exclusive domain name auction company for the 2010 T.R.A.F.F.I.C. Domain Conference & Expo. (Id. 8.) This auction will allow both live bidding and worldwide Internet-based bidding.
A list of the domain names is not currently available, but it will be interesting to see what’s on the list. Many of Zuccarini’s domain names were typos, and the court has shown concern before that auctioning off typos may be problematic. In 2007, the court wrote:
The Court is concerned, however, with DS Holdings’ ultimate plan to auction off the domain names at issue. As Zuccarini points out, many of the domain names at issue are deliberate misspellings and variations of legitimate domain names, both generic and proprietary. Such names may have legitimate purposes, as counsel argued at the hearing, but they may also be used to misdirect consumers, as apparently Zuccarini himself did.
However, many of the domain names that expired and were auctioned at NameJet were generic typos.
Hat tip: John Berryhill.
Josh says
There is one major issue I can see for the savy buyer. Unless Rick also secures the traffic/revenue statistics for the generic typo’s ( the bulk of the inventory ) which generally see’s 4-5 yrs as a multiple, what good is it guessing?
You do not buy these names based on anything but their multiple. In fact who needs Rick at all? Just list them with their stats and get 4-5 yrs all day long. the only reason to run an auction and keep stats private is to get morons to over pay.
John Berryhill says
“the traffic/revenue statistics for the generic typo’s”
Shhh…. nobody told the court about the parking revenue for the period the names have been held, or where it is going.
Josh says
Seriously?
Josh says
By his own words, attempt to prevent the sales he stated.
“Zuccarini claims the 90 domain names subject to the suit generated, $70K a year in revenue.”
If anything it should help determine value on the entire 90 names, which the governmentgrant(s) typos sold on namejet made up a large majority of that revenue….. so the remaining 80ish do very low to mid 5 figs a year x 5 years= $1XXk-$200k for the whole remaining lot ?
Jakbqwik says
Only an idiot would buy any of these domains.
emma says
Listen folks: The only people making money domaining are the domain registrars and domain extension marketers. They would tell you anything about domains so that you register domains and when you do so they got you in their trap. You have to renew the domains every year hoping you will sell them at a exorbitant price and that will never happen, before yes, not now. To sell a domain name today you must be lucky, just like winning a lottery. Don’t please go by SEDO sale reports. They are fake. Most of the sale Sedo reports are fictitious, they never took place, if they take place then is a fixed sale. They would register any names any day and they would sell to themselves and then report the sale, this is to give impression that domains are selling well. Be smart Folks
NootkaBear says
John Berryhill..
“Shhh…. nobody told the court about the parking revenue for the period the names have been held, or where it is going.”
That was priceless! Thanks for giving me a smile in an otherwise dull day!
NootkaBear says
Josh….
“If anything it should help determine value on the entire 90 names, which the governmentgrant(s) typos sold on namejet made up a large majority of that revenue”
You really think so? Have you, yourself seen the revenue figures, or are you just making a statement?
NootkaBear says
One thing I find interesting…
“That receiver has had his share of challenges, including letting some of the domain names expire”
I have a hard time believing that the poor, poor reciever has had such challenges. Hell, how hard is it to see that something is renewed after they send you 54 reminders?
Besides, if Z owed Office Depot $165,000, and the idiot reciever let $65,000 piss out of the window… Considering the amount gone compared to the amount owed, I would find myself feeling sorry for Z, not that poor reciever.
Josh says
NootkaBear, I know this much, I know what the grant typos make parked, John claimed the lot made $70k in total ( his own words when he filed to stop the sale ), minus the revenue the grant typos make and the other handful that sold on NJ u are left with low to mid 5 figs a year. It simple math… thereforeX by 4-5 yrs gives us approx value of $100k-$200k max. And a savy buyer wouldnt pay that. Its my belief that eventhough this is public knowledge now theyll line up dozens of suckers to over pay on a gamble and laugh all the way to the bank. If John told the truth about revenue last month and there are no more names involved we dont see I believe my guess is spot on.
NootkaBear says
Josh,
You are most probably quite right. I was just going by what I had seen in the paperwork. The paperwork that I saw showed that the grants.com and the other 12-13 that sold were not included in the price.
From what the court docs show, the receiver was supposed to do a full accounting to include the ones that sold, but to date has neglected to do so.
NootkaBear says
I do have to appreciate the way you put it though, and I am sure that you are probably right on point with:
“theyll line up dozens of suckers to over pay on a gamble and laugh all the way to the bank.”