Yesterday Judge Susan Illston of U.S. District Court – Northern District of California denied a request for emergency relief on domain names that a court appointed receiver let expire.”
(From DNW)
Better stick to getting paid by the hour – leave the risk/reward stuff to us ‘domainer types’.

Netsol claims to have sent multiple expiration warnings, and I am inclined to believe them.

It seems then that Netsol’s responsibility revolves around this idea that the domain names were ordered to be controlled by the receiver. The notion of “control” would appear to include the receiver’s decision to renew, or not renew, any of the names. If the receiver had simply decided not to renew certain names, then someone would be here complaining that Netsol had violated the receiver’s “control” by NOT following the normal post-expiration process set forth in its terms.

The names were supposed to be under the control of the receiver. That does not provide Netsol with any discretion in the treatment of names the receiver does not renew, after having received expiration warnings from Netsol.

As far as getting the names back, I don’t see the point. The entire objective of the plaintiff here is to obtain control of the domain names for the purpose of auctioning them off. The names were auctioned off, at a definite auction value. Hence, in contrast to real estate transactions in which sometimes the application of principles of equity will deem a pile of money representing the sale price of the real estate not to be a substitute for the real estate itself, the loss here is not irreparable by monetary damages. In other words, the situation would be different if it was the plaintiff’s ultimate intention to actually use the domain names. In that situation, a monetary remedy would be inadequate.

Here, however, the plaintiff’s intention was to conduct an auction to obtain a sum of money for the domains. That is exactly what NameJet did, which reduces the remedy here to a legal remedy (i.e. the money), and not an equitable remedy (i.e. transfer of the domains). In other words, the quarrel here is about “who got the money for auctioning the domains”, not “who got the domains”.

Oh what a tangled web

Add to the equation that not only is Netsol the registrar but they own part of the auction service that the domain was dropped and auctioned through.

Moreover the domain sold for the most money still is showing in pending delete status.

As T.O. says “get your popcorn ready”.

Beginning as of the date this Order is entered and continuing until such
time as this order is modified, superseded or vacated, neither John
Zuccarini, Network Solutions, Joker.com nor any other party with
actual or constructive knowledge of this Order, nor any person or entity
owned or controlled by any such party, shall transfer, cause to be transferred, or otherwise permit, participate in or facilitate the transfer
of any domain name comprising the Domain Name Holdings.”

The effect of this Order is that by letting the domains drop, not only is the Receiver personally responsible, but so is Netsol, which did not diligently protect those names from dropping by warning the Receiver that they were about to drop and giving him an opportunity to extend their registrations.

Had these domains been any other random domain names that expired and were auctioned off there would be nothing the losing party could do but in this case there is recourse I’m afraid.

http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/zuccarini-1.pdf
http://domainnamewire.com/wp-content/zuccarini-2.pdf

NameJet and Netsol are in the clear. The domain receiver is responsible for the domains. If he cannot handle that responsibility it is his fault. The law does not work backwards, not even a judge is that stupid.

Domain receivers do the dirty work for the scum lawyers who sue for $100k per domain. It is a back-alley business if you ask me. I know someone who was sued for $200k for 2 domains that were worth nothing, but had a TM in them. He lost a few domains worth over $50k and his entire web business.

Don’t cut these guys any slack, they are just trolling the domain biz.

“On December 18, 2006, DSH registered in this Court a judgment issued against
Zuccarini by the United States District Court for the Central District of California (the
“Judgment”). In connection with DSH’s efforts to enforce the Judgment, the Court
issued a preservation and discovery order (the “Preservation Order”) on February 21,
2007. [D.E. No. 9.] Among other things, the Preservation Order stated:
Beginning as of the date this Order is entered and continuing until such
time as this order is modified, superseded or vacated, neither John
Zuccarini, Network Solutions, Joker.com nor any other party with
actual or constructive knowledge of this Order, nor any person or entity
owned or controlled by any such party, shall transfer, cause to be transferred, or otherwise permit, participate in or facilitate the transfer
of any domain name comprising the Domain Name Holdings.”

Network Solutions was specifically named and there is a standing court order in place to not transfer these domains.