Generic domain investors are “free to set the prices [they] deem reasonable”.
Domain name investor Merlin Kauffman, with the help of attorney John Berryhill, has successfully defended his domain name FiberStar.com in a UDRP.
The case was filed by Fiberstar, Inc., a fiber supplements company that uses the matching .net domain name.
There are two notable things about this case.
First, Kauffman’s parking of the domain name helped his case. The domain is parked with ad topics related to the internet connotation of “fiber”. Even if the ads had been related to fiber in the nutritional sense, this would show legitimate interests in the domain for advertising services. But in this case, the ads also helped clarify the issue of targeting the complainant.
Second, the panel confirmed that owners of generic domain names can set whatever price they want:
Complainant’s assertion that Respondent’s sale price of $35,000 for the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) fails also. Complainant’s mark, FIBERSTAR, is composed of two common words, “fiber” and “star” and, as Complainant contends, fits within up to 15,000 generic-word domain names that are owned by Respondent. Moreover, Complainant admits that it initiated negotiation over price by first contacting Respondent in connection with purchase of the disputed domain name. Since, as reasoned above, there is no sustainable evidence that Respondent acquired the disputed domain name in bad faith, Respondent, as a legitimate reseller of generic-word domain names, is free to set the prices he deems reasonable for names in his inventory.
adam@ says
Kaufman should jack up the price and ask for equity. 🙂
Acro says
Maybe they need to invest some of the $10 million into a domain name. Just $35k of it. Oops, now the price has quadrupled. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/fiberstar-closes-on-1064-million-strategic-growth-transaction-215832421.html
Ian Ingram says
When a complainant files a baseless UDRP (for example on a generic keyword domain that was registered prior to a business or trademark being created) what is really going on? It likely falls into these categories:
-They are going to take a long shot because there are other instances where someone in their shoes has somehow gotten the domain.
-They haven’t read the UDRP rules or do not understand them.
-Their lawyer hasn’t read the UDRP rules or doesn’t understand them.
-Their lawyer has convinced them they can win and is happy to take their money.
-They can’t afford the asking price and therefore attempting to take the domain is their only option.
-They can afford the asking price but would rather gamble on getting it for less.
-They don’t mind having their company linked to a UDRP loss or RDNH ruling.
-They truly believe that because their business is called ‘whatever’ or because they were granted a trademark on ‘whatever’ they have worldwide exclusive rights to the term.
-They are against the idea of purchasing a domain to sell for profit and believe that domain investing is effectively cybersquatting.
For the baseless cases, it is often a matter of ignorance, theft, sense of entitlement, etc. One thing that is practically a certainty – the price of a domain name will not get any better after wasting someone’s time and money on these types of cases.
When an investor owns a domain and is willing to sell it, that is about the best case scenario. Most are willing to negotiate on price, offer payments plans, have secure payment options, can walk you through the transfer, handle things in a timely and businesslike manner, etc.
Matheus says
What a superb summary as to why a complainant, often assisted by a law firm, submits a baseless complaint. You should add these exact comments on every similar case. Well done.
Ryan says
Very conflicting conversation from the panelists, I have seen stronger cases where PPC pages, and the reseller status are really looked down upon by panelists.
This judgement does it somehow conform to new policy, as it seems like the context of what a true udrp ruling should be, it is so wishy washy half the time.
Powerful statement:
Respondent, as a legitimate reseller of generic-word domain names, is free to set the prices he deems reasonable for names in his inventory.
Let’s hope these rulings stick
The whole UDRP process is messed up, the compensation of panelists is just to offbeat, if they rule true to one side, their income essentially falls.
Garth says
This one – “They are against the idea of purchasing a domain to sell for profit and believe that domain investing is effectively cybersquatting”
As someone put it once, an unethical and shallow way of generating revenues.
John says
JB is the very best.
MichaelBlend says
Great month for Merlin!