Perhaps saying this domain was held for ransom is a fair characterization.
In September I wrote about a UK foster agency that forgot to renew its domain. It said the person who bought the expired domain was holding it for ransom by demanding £9,000 for its return.
The foster agency opted to file a UDRP instead of pay for the domain. It won the case, and the details certainly don’t make the person who bought the domain look good.
Little Acorns Fostering dug up dirt on registrant Al Perkins, and alleged that he frequently buys expired domains and then puts porn on them in an effort to get the former owners to buy the domain back.
According to the foster agency, Perkins pointed out that the foster agency’s emails could be captured. Ostensibly acting to be a broker for the new owner, he wrote:
For example they just reset the mx records to obtain your clients details then approach them with a better offer.
Then you have to question the value of your business and brand, is your business worth more than £8700 ?
It seems that the foster agency leaned toward paying a reduced price of £5000 but changed its mind. At that point, the panel writes:
“…Perkins” appeared to be upset by this turn of events claiming that the Complainant was behaving unethically in operating a business that made money from “poor little kids”, accusing the Complainant of “threatening and blackmailing” and stating that the Complainant would be reported to the police and the council “so you have your licences taken away from you immediately”.
4.13 Following what would appear to be a phone call, “Perkins Perkins” sent an email in which he accused the Complainant of being abusive, and then became abusive himself. In the penultimate paragraph he wrote:
“Tell your foul mouth wife to f[…] herself and you will never get the domain back on principal [sic].”
4.14 There then followed what can perhaps be characterized as a tirade of threatening emails one of which stated:
“Your company will be exposed along with you as abusers, kids should not be around that foul language under any circumstances.”
The decision states that at some point thereafter, the website resolved to a page with the word “Abuse” struck out in a red circle. (That page still resolves as of today, and it appears to be an unpaid stock image from FeaturePics.com.)
Some shenanigans ensued with Perkins saying the domain had been transferred to a different owner.
Yikes.
Acro says
The domain was taken over by a “heartless” opportunist, but who’s to blame for its drop? https://domaingang.com/domain-news/little-acorns-fostering-lost-com-domain-to-squatter-but-who-is-to-blame/
They might have a case with the people that managed the domain in the first place.
Ron says
Usually I don’t like to see domainer types lose, but this jerk has been doing this for far to long, and has logged alot of media attention over the years.
It’s about time, he should have taken even $3K
C.S. Watch says
Oh, dear. At least they’re British.
Wesley Dean Perkins and Alison Marie Perkins, the middle-aged Bonnie and Clod of Birmingham. This can only end in tragedy.
Q: Who blackmail-squats a foster care company via an ‘abuse’ landing page in the most libel-happy country in the world?
A: The same guy who defends false Whois data with this deft parry: “With due respect you cannot assume nothing, if it’s in black and white with the registrar as in law and according to icanns [sic] policy.”
Is it that you are Sacha Baron Cohen?
I will say, though…they were radicalized in the US. In 2006, back in the salad days of hijacking, and in what looks to be their first UDRP, the domain cheaphotel.net was stolen from them using one of the ADR Forum’s over-arch and under-studied retirees. They even filed additional submissions.
Good parenting counts.
John says
Principal? What principle? That he’s a jackass? I once let a deviant lunatic “domainer” have what was coming to him when he reneged on a deal over some insane perceived failure to properly worship him. Some among our “ranks” can be absolute slime. And last I checked it’s been years still without being able to sell it to anyone else.
Amir says
At the end of the day he is right, them scum fostering agencies charging the tax payer up to £3k a week and paying fostering payments just £300 a week, i would of charged them more, they are the exploiting the situation from poor children…Peroid!