In another horribly lazy opinion, the domain name NiceCar.com was just awarded to NICE CAR, INC. by a one member UDRP panelist Sandra J. Franklin to a trademark holder.
Although the complainant had a federal trademark it was only registered in 2007 while the domain holder owned the domain for 13 years.
The panelist which never said one word about the generic nature of the term, Nice Car, awarded the domain based on the finding that the “Complainant has established secondary meaning in the NICE CAR mark, dating back to 1975, prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.”
I guess no one has ever uttered the phrase that someone has a nice car before the complaintant came up with it in 1975.
What a joke.
Instead of viewing the ownership of the domain name for 13 years and the non-action of the trademark holder to support the rights of the domain holder, the panelists found the domain holder showing “no demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in 13 years, further evidence that Respondent has not made a bona fide offering or a legitimate use under Policy “The domain holder did not respond to the UDRP.
Here are the relevant facts and findings by the panel:
“Complainant owns a federal trademark registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for its NICE CAR mark (Reg. No. 3,205,109 registered Feb. 6, 2007).
“Complainant has used the NICE CAR mark for vehicle repair services since 1975, and for motor vehicle sales since 1984.”
“The Panel finds that Complainant’s registration of the NICE CAR mark with the USPTO is sufficient to confer rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
“Complainant also argues that it has been using the mark in relation to its motor vehicle business since about 1975, decades before Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.”
The Panel finds that, based on the entire record, Complainant has established secondary meaning in the NICE CAR mark, dating back to 1975, prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.”<
“Complainant also alleges that Respondent has not made a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, and thus fails to establish rights under Policy”
“Complainant notes that Respondent has simply been offering the domain name for sale since at least February 2003. ”
“This is evidence of Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. “
“Complainant also claims that Respondent has made no demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in 13 years, further evidence that Respondent has not made a bona fide offering or a legitimate use under Policy “
Respondent has demonstrated bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) by acquiring the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to Complainant for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs related to the domain name.
“Complainant states that Respondent is offering to sell the <nicecar.com> domain name for $100,000, an amount that surely exceeds respondent’s costs of maintaining the disputed domain name.”
Zak Muscovitch says
Coincidentally, just the other day I wrote guest post on Flippa’s blog (http://tinyurl.com/bs32tzs), without having been aware of this new case law development, and this is what I had to say:
“However, if you registered a common dictionary word or a descriptive phrase, as a domain name, such as “NiceCars.com”, or came up with the domain name before the trademark owner even adopted a similar word as their brand, then generally you should “Hold Them”, and tell the claimant that they have no rights over the domain name, as you registered it in good faith and have a legitimate interest in it. You wouldn’t think that trademark owners or their lawyers would make spurious claims to try and get a domain name off of you, but it does happen all too frequently, and this is often called “Reverse Domain Name Hijacking”.
Foolish me. 😉
Nice shirt! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xBWk2ez3mQo
Michael Berkens says
Well if the domain holder hired your firm to file a response not only would they have won the case they could very well have gotten a finding of RDNH.
Domainers you need to spend the money and defend yourself against an attack.
If someone broke into your house and tried to harm yourself, your family and grab things you worked all your life for would you fight or just open the door and show them around?
Michael Berkens says
In all fairness I think its a jacket.
Car dealerships are getting aggressive. Is it these guys? http://www.nicecar1977.com
Brad Mugford says
This is an obvious generic term used in every day life. The term has almost 10M Google results in quotes.
I am sorry but this panelist is a moron, as is the Vanity.com panelist and many others.
These panelists seem to not only be lazy, but also are totally clueless in TM and intellectual property law. Either that, or the fix is in.
Here is the website of the panelist (Sandra J. Franklin) – http://www.technologyadr.com
There needs to be accountability for these terrible decisions.
This is outright theft of property.
The panelist still gets paid, and has a job, no matter how ridiculous and unfair the decision is.
With a competent panelist this could have, and should have resulted in a RDNH ruling.
I am not sure about the legalities here, but are panelists protected by judicial immunity? They are not technically judges.
It might be time to consider legal action vs. all parties involved in the UDRP process, including ICANN. They created this mechanism that is being used to steal property, outside courts, without due process.
…so bad faith was the reason because owner wanted $100,000 and then loses the domain name completely. Looks like another successful theft. One wonders about the integrity of the panelists, or at least the intelligence of same.
What this industry really needs is an arbitration board as the old way seems to be not working too fairly anymore. This “all or nothing” approach is really skewed…
Brad Mugford says
“Complainant states that Respondent is offering to sell the domain name for $100,000, an amount that surely exceeds respondent’s costs of maintaining the disputed domain name.”
Either the owner has a legitimate right to own a domain or they do not.
If they have a legitimate right then the owner can ask any price they want.
This is so stupid !!!
Why do i have to spend $5,000 to protect my rights?An investment that i hold on for 13 F***ing years
This was clear that the domain was bought seven yrs before the mark.
What kind of idiots is UDRP hiring ??? where does it end?
Why isn’t there a fee for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ??? LIKE $100,000 ???
It beat $1,500 filing a UDRP case then $100,000 for the domain name.
I’m so furios
This opinion alone will create probably create over $250K more in gross business for NAF and WIPO – and isn’t that what it is all about – keeping panelists employed 🙂
Michael Berkens says
We are all for Jobs but lets make them do the job
Brad Mugford says
“This opinion alone will create probably create over $250K more in gross business for NAF and WIPO – and isn’t that what it is all about – keeping panelists employed”
That is not what it is supposed to be about.
First and foremost the organizations are supposed to provide objective arbitration and mediation processes. Instead it seems like these organizations have no problem driving revenue by handing over obvious generic assets.
The more absurd the decisions, the more future revenue.
That is just plain wrong.
Francisco Alejandro Viana Canizalez says
hola, los abusos de las personas en tomar lo que no es de ellos, solo porque el dueño no atiende esa propiedad, no quiere decir que va a venir otro alegando con papeles falsos de asaber que año, que fue quien creo ese nombre, respaldado por abogados comunes o poco profecionales que no honran el juramento que hacen en su profecion y que ya sabemos como actuan. .
veamos la raiz de eso, para conocer la realidad, tampoco los resolutores pueden actuar arbitrariamente en todos esos casos.
ya se sabe como es que han trabajado muchas empresas, bancos, gobiernos autoridades de vigilancia del orden de internet y la compra de voluntades que ha existido.
las cosas se tienen que hacer correctamente. acaso la vida es para aprovecharse de los demas, o del que se descuida?, entonces he vivido equivocado todos estos años, queriendo hacer lo correcto. buen probecho señores. lo que deben hacer es corregir esa manera de pensar.
Michael Berkens says
For those that don’t speak Spanish here is the translation:\
hello, abuse of people taking what is not theirs, just because the owner does not meet the property, does not mean it’s going to be another false papers claiming to asaber that year, it was who created that name, backed by common law or shortly profecionales who do not honor the oath they do in their profecion and that we know how to act.
see the result of that, to know the reality, the solvers can not act arbitrarily in all such cases.
you know how they have worked many companies, banks, government surveillance authorities by internet and buying intentions ever.
things have to be done correctly. perhaps life is to take advantage of others, or of the neglect?, then I lived wrong all these years, trying to do the right thing. probecho good gentlemen. what to do to correct that thinking.
Danny Pryor says
Otrocious decision. But who would EVER agree to a one-person panel?
You know who else is lazy, though, are the attorneys used by the USPTO who permit the granting of trademarks of such generic terms and phrases. That should not be permitted.
Danny Pryor says
Atrocious … not otrocious. Crap.
Michael Berkens says
Yesterday there was a one member panel that not only denied the UDRP but found RDNH
I’m for one done with excusing lazy panelists
So this means NICE CAR, INC can also go after all these domains as well right?
what about when they expand into TRUCKS? NICE CAR, inc you can go after
nicecarsandtrucks.com , or I assume they will just register a new TM and go after nicetruck.com.
“The more absurd the decisions, the more future revenue.
That is just plain wrong.”
Like I said earlier – but I will use different words now – these panelists have bills to pay – and clearly some are in desperate financial times – like the nicecar.com opinion panelists IMO.
This result is understandable and completely in line with the bureaucratic over-regulated world in which the complacent proletariat has by action and inaction decided to let government run their lives because they’re too busy with Facebook and fantasy football, or whatever mundane distraction they cling to. Values, character and logic are rare commodities, as evidenced by this erroneous decision.
Under an unthinking computer-like application of the statutes, the decision is correct. However, AI is poor at best with reckoning, as was this quasi-judge. The law was not meant for application without full consideration of all the relevant facts. Here, it appears it was not so artfully done. But it is what it was; the prior owner can appeal (there is always a way to get a second opinion), but absent provable error it is doubtful there will be a change/reversal.
This is a mere pebble in what appears to be the mega-corporations waging war on the little guys making money on the Internet–not unlike the vulturous governments–they want it all.
The trademark (Nice Car) city and state info match that of NiceCarInc.com which is a very simple mom and pop style mechanic company with a very outdated website so I am very curious why they would go to the trouble of doing a UDRP. Something just doesn’t add up in my opinion. This is NOT the type of company that would do a UDRP.
NiceCarInc.com (complainant) was created on 6/12/2000 which is 2 months prior to NiceCar.com (respondent) on 8/10/2000. Same owner has owned NiceCar.com from the beginning and it has been updated many times in the past 13 years the latest being in February of 2013 so its definitely not a name someone has forgotten about so I am curious why no one responded to the UDRP. Since original owner lives in Korea it is possible paperwork lost in the shuffle so to speak and in translation. There is some behind the scene things going on in these UDRP cases that we do not know about it because the information does not add up as in this case.
Lance Zeidman says
What is needed is an open forum, a panel of more than one. Period.
Accountability? You need to have this, these, and many others brought to public eye with Press releases based on criteria and findings. If no one knows than nobody will care.
Funny how the industry is run behind closed doors. No accountability equates to no consequence.
Maybe if you got served with an obvious frivolous UDRP, you should make it public from the getgo. Then outcome might be a bit different with accountability in the public eye. Case after case the industry outcome would soon change.
Gordo Granudo says
“If no one knows than nobody will care.”
I’m sure your planet is rad but here in the world I live in, you could scream this from the rooftops, nobody would care and most of those who did would probably agree with the decision.
We live in a world where judges sentence non-violent drug offenders to 20, 30, 50 years in prison… and nobody cares. We live in a world where a nuclear power declared war- threatening to use nuclear weapons- on it’s neighbor, yet that wasn’t even the lead story on the news. It was, however, briefly reported subsequent to a story about a con-man in Argentina selling fluffy weasels on steroids as poodles.
We live in a world where nobody cares. Ignore the deluded howlers who have a comically irrational view of their own importance and reach. If you think the way to fight this is to ‘get people to care’, raise up that grassroots righteous indignation and storm the Bastille at ICANN to demand change, then might I propose you aren’t much of a strategist.
The way to fight this is quite simple. George Kirikos just laid the groundwork for Canadians to do that, yet it was mostly glossed over. Every Canadian domain owner should be kissing his ass for that. That is precisely what we need here.
Instead of rooting for totally impotent “findings of RDNH” – which are utterly inconsequential to the point that they’re hardly even worth mentioning- we need to start seeking cost recovery, laying the legal groundwork for just how injurious the process of domain hijacking can be to a rightful domain owner and breaking it off in the assholes of every company who does this shit with civil claims of tortious interference (or whatever strategy appears best)…
But no, at no point in time will anyone “care”.
Drew Rosener says
There is absolutely no grounds for allowing a trademark for “Nice Car”. I own NiceRide.com and even that is 100% generic.
The owner of NiceCar.com probably (foolishly) assumed that the case would be dismissed by the panelist considering the generic nature of “Nice Car” and the fact that he owned NiceCar.com so long before the trademark registration. Big mistake.
Is there anyway to “purchase” one’s rights in a domain name which was just lost in such a stupid UDRP decision and then fight it yourself in court?
Meaning, could I or someone else now go to previous NiceCar.com owner and purchase his common law rights to the domain name and then file suit against the complainant to block the transfer?
I agree with the last poster that while I completely applaud the howlings and disgust expressed at these appalling decisions – *noone cares*. Rick Schwartz shouts louder than almost anyone and he’s taken this as howl numero uno and still *noone cares*.
Are Proctor & Gamble bothered about RDNH findings? Have those brazilians fools made peace and undertaken not to make such mistakes again? How about any of those other moronic thieving $*&%’s sharing a place on that hall of shame.
Due to the lack of any actual real world sanction, and the chance of acquiring a huge asset for just a few K there’s a danger that getting on such list becomes a medal of honour rather than a bad thing.
Now unscrupulous udrp complainants know exactly which attorneys and panellists one might procure in order to improve their chances of getting the result that suits them, RDNH risk be damned.
The only way to change things in this world are to petition the people who make the decisions of the framework. And the only way to nudge them in the right way is to put pressure in their pockets – because apart from there, noone cares.
Anyone know if this Sandra J. Franklin is selling her house, car or anything else worth a good amount of money? If so maybe you should go take it for free and mention that she is over charging and has no interest in using it so taking it for nothing is fair game these days?!
I feel really sorry for the poor person that lost this domain name, I mean so what if they where not using it, they bought it, they own it! I own a car that’s not used, does that give every tom dick and harry the right to come take it out my back garden?
So why should it be any different for domains like this? Ones which are generic terms, which no one owns the rights to!
As Rick calls them,THEY are
Brad Mugford says
I just read the decision. You want to talk about lazy, how about this –
“Accordingly, it is Ordered that the domain name be TRNASFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.”
Nice spelling on transferred. I guess spell check is not required in a process that is used to steal someone’s property.
Has the owner of NiceCar.com made any comment on this Thread ?
loool @Brad good one. Yeah I think that probably explains quite a lot.
During some future ICANN meeting or whatever maybe someone could propose a motion to have all udrp panellists pass a routine breath test for alcohol and other intoxicants 😀
Brad Mugford says
I found (6) more UDRP decisions where Sandra J. Franklin used “TRNASFERRED” in the decision.
Who needs an objective decision when copy & paste works fine.
She was also behind the awful MedicalPark.com decision.
On top of this her website shows she clearly does not understand free market principals.
From her website –
“The current holder registered and uses the domain name in bad faith (e.g. with the intention of selling it for more than the out-of-pocket costs.)”
Selling a domain for more than out of pocket is not bad faith in itself. There needs to be accountability for this.
I think you’re wrong about that. I believe the Complainant has been using/trading on NiceCar1977.com (Hollywood, FL).
The owners of nicecarinc.com are based in Colorado.
Michael Berkens says
The case didn’t say where the trademark holder was located by the attorney for them is Ancel W. Lewis, of Colorado, USA
Trademark holder and domain holder for NiceCarinc.com are the same. Here is the link below for the trademark
and here is the link for the domain holder
@ Todd said:
UDPR and more so URS seem an avenue for business owners to sidestep the frustration of having their dot coms or new gTLD already registered in a world noone predicted the internet would take over the way it has . . . It is a late offering to businesses, capitalizing on the hatred of domain investors.
Therefore, not answering a UDRP is tantamount to letting the domain go, saying it’s not worth the bother . . .
Dot coms held by paid secretaries in foreign countries where the Whosis is a mailbox or isn’t a true address may be more likely candidates to not answering a UDPR or URS. Were registrars ever supposed to own domains dropped by original owners, or is that anti-competitive? It’s all happened so fast, no guidelines have been drawn.
todd, I stand (sit actually) corrected. You did your homework.
That website of theirs would’ve been tacky back in 1999, eh?
A joke on multiple levels:
A one person panel sounds like an oxymoron.
There is not even some basic common law followed in terms of precedents when it comes to domains.
There is no avenue of appeal.
The Domain industry is continually outraged by decisions like these but seemingly have no ability or power to make it a fair and just process after all these years.
Dave Zan says
I’m curious about some things. The trademark for “nice car” indicated FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 19871001 or October 1, 1987, way before the domain name was registered in 2000.
Also, the decision indicated that the respondent offered (or offering?) to sell the domain name for $100,000. Don’t know who started it, but…trying to sell a domain name bearing a trademark (and seemingly one that was registered before the domain name was) seemed like a slam dunk for the mark holder.
I know I’m going against the trend here, and that certain details (i.e. date, use, etc.) matter if/when they matter, but…I’m just wondering. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong somewhere.
Of course, as stated earlier, it would’ve helped if the respondent only replied.
Why are the commenters here getting their knickers in a twist over a responsdent who didn’t even reply? That’s what I don’t understand. Spend your energy elsewhere. If the owner didn’t care about the domain, you don’t have to.
If I get served for small claims, and decide to blow it off, I lost the case. There have been enough automatic wins over the “respondent” in UDPR NOT RESPONDING that one may conclude, if the “respondent” doesn’t respond, then he has bigger fish to fry, or maybe he’s trying to hide his real identity, or both.
I put, “respondent,” in quotes, because if the respondent doesn’t respond, it sends a confusing message of the case.
I am on your side!
If the respondent doesn’t go to bat for himself, then I’m not going to bat for him. Do it for abused children, who can’t speak for themselves, not for apathetic businessmen who have bigger fish to fry.
Can you imagine if MHB doesn’t respond to a UDPR? Even if you don’t care about the domain, I’d think you would RESPOND to UDPR, right, @MHB? You’re not going to let them smear you.
Louise. What happens if they’re hiking in the Andes, or in a coma. Or if they just died in some tragic and bloody road accident and their relatives or other estate representatives are still all in a tizzy. According to you their property rights are somehow lessened or non-existant in such circumstances?
Or maybe their mum/son/hamster changed email and didnt get the memo.
The reason why these cases must be “batted” for too is very simple. Who will be there when they come for X.
I think your assumption that non-response must 100% mean they dont care is quite an absurd leap. Sure maybe they dont care but simple non-response is in no way a definitive proof of such at all.
Michael Berkens says
We would always respond and get a three member panel
@LM I agree, I don’t always monitor the email address I use on my domains as its not my main email address as those are open to the public so I use a separate email as do many other domain owners, so what if you miss the email, does that mean you no longer want the domain?
If that’s the case I know a whole bunch of domains up for grabs as the owners don’t watch every email that comes in, just those from the register etc as that’s all they have xyz email address for, to keep domains up-to-date, not to be contacted on and risk having every spammer and scammer freely gain access to there email account!
Dave Zan says
Well, maybe because the circumstances behind this decision potentially puts the others at risk, especially if they don’t reply to a UDRP.
Personally, I’m not bothered by this at all. I’m just rather intrigued enough to try understanding it, more so with the particular circumstances of this dispute.
Does not look like domain has been assigned to the Complainant yet.
Domain Name: NICECAR.COM
Registrar: HANGANG Systems,Inc. dba doregi.com
choi sung sik
Haitvit-APT 2412-101 Haengsin-dong Goyang-si Deokyang-gu Gyeonggi-do
Michael Berkens says
Well I assume the domain owner filed a suit to stop the transfer. I just did a search for the domain in the US federal database and did not see a case but did see that 77 federal cases someone is using the term “nice car” as part of the claim just to show you how generic the term is and how ridiculous this UDRP was
yes – the whois for nicecar.com suggests some kind of holding account – like a court account until decided.
the panelist has to be running a bit scarred now – she is making a mockery of udrp – more than once I am told as well.
Sorry I often comment into a vacuum, and just saw the responses, which I’ll address
Extreme examples to hide the major issues:
1. companies escape liability by moving their assets offshore
2. companies escape liability by putting their assets into nominee shareholder accounts, so executives aren’t implicated
3. registered in offshore accounts or in Nevada, Wyoming, or Delaware, using a mailbox as the serving address.
Don’t offer extreme cases to protect the above!
Somebody changed an email and didn’t update the whosis?
Then the domain is not an asset. The domain is an asset or it isn’t.
As far as the example of someone dying, if people in the US don’t make preparation, and noone claims the assets, monies, real estate, and contents of a safe deposit box get turned over to the state . . . If someone ignorant at a corporation allows company-owned domains to drop, they’re dropped. Does the company get special protection for domains dropped in ignorance?
Registrars who hoard domains shouldn’t get special protections, just because they think they’re untouchable. Every once in a while, a UDPR hits the news where the owner[s] believe they’re untouchable, because the domain was registered in paid flunkey’s name in a foreign land, and because – hey, I’m eNom, or I’m GD – I’m above the law! My assets are stored in foreign accounts – you can’t get me!
Worthless as my portfolio is viewed, I scribbled all the info in a notebook, put it in an envelope, and handed it to a family member to be given to my brother in case of my death, so he can keep what he wants, make renewals, etc.
Companies have been doing it for years, limiting their liability and sending assets to an offshore account to pay the minimum in taxes, but it’s getting to levels nowadays, where companies violate ethics freely because of feeling immune. I think that’s what happened to the owner of NiceCars. Overconfidence. That’s the last I have to say.
Agreed – I play by the rules – don’t hide myself or my past actions – its all there in front of god and everybody else – and most importantly I pay my taxes so that everybody else can get their free shit 🙂
It’s good. You sleep at night, knowing you did right. I want to, too. I want to pay the maximum, even in behalf of those who register out-of-state, so that when their limousines drive them over the bridge, the bridge is less likely to collapse, because a few hard working people are willing to do their part. I lived in Connecticut when the i-95 collapsed – what a mess!
“I want to pay the maximum,” –
In any successful business there are significant lawful differences in “maximum”.
That is why so many people are getting something completely different than the government their vote voted for – and candidly by far are the most frustrated as well IMO.
But the horseshit coming out of the Harvard lawyer’s mouth sure sounded good – yes ?
At the end of the day – whoever the NiceCar.com guy is – well he IS likely playing by the rules – but you must live and die by the sword you draw – that is I believe a point you and I could agree to Louise.
Who is the Harvard lawyer? Sandra J. Franklin? Ms. Franklin carved a niche for herself, marketing-wise. I am very proud she has a website and a youtube channel. Ms. Franklin has positioned her services as the go-to panelist for businesses looking to acquire their dot com for their trademark.
It’s just I can’t be sympathetic to registrants who can’t be bothered to respond. Okay, you’re vacationing in the maldives on the beach. Check your email once per week. Every domainer or domain investor should know to not leave the shop unattended. Would a president or CEO vacation in a place he can’t be reached, or not leave people in charge? People with massive portfolios aren’t entitled to blanket protection any more than the individual or business that allows his domain to drop.
I was clowning on you. Ms. Franklin may be on a mission to battle the injustice of reserved domains for investment purposes, as many view it, and that is useful knowledge to apply.
Regarding your comment on wanting to pay maximum taxes the reference was both to the lib president and the rhino guy that ran against him – both Harvard “educated” 🙂
Yes – Sandra Franklin’s opinion confirms she does not understand buying beach front property and not developing it and offering it for sale is lawful and what makes this country great – i.e. 14th amendment of equal access.
And I think in a different post Michael reveals this case is now entered into evidence in several ACPA / Federal Cases demonstrating some udrp panel’s personal biases over reality.
I sent Ms. Franklin a sympathetic note, because one of my old drops, too, is currently counted in Frank Schilling’s portfolio, and I don’t remember receiving notifications from my registrar at that time, Dotster. Also, I recommended a good domain which is still avail for hand reg, and
What does Sandra Franklin have to do with your inability to renew a domain or maintain a database (with expiration dates) of any domain in your portfolio – so you do not have to rely on the registrar itself for reminders ?
You’re right. Domain investors or any business using a domain, need to create a database with expirations. Good for you – you do that!
There is something which you don’t understand, because your registrar might not mess with you, where he would the small business or individual. For instance, I see the, “pending delete” link in my Moniker dashboard is missing, so I created a support ticket. The Domain Name Deletion terms say you have within 22 days of expiration as a grace period to renew, yet Moniker recently changed its process to move expired domains to Pending Delete folder 10 days after renewal, where they can still be renewed by the registrant.
Since I’m used to that, I take my time and choose which domains to renew or let expire, but now I have to wonder, with no, “pending delete,” folder accessible from my dashboard, is the Pending Delete period over? I received no notice.
Hi Louise –
You raise a great question which opens up a can of worms – I have never got a straight answer on – because I am not a registrar – I do not think there is a straight answer 🙂
After a domain expires – how long can a registrar keep a domain before either it or the domain’s owner renews it – before it HAS TO BE released back to the central registry.
I know one thing – it is not cut and dried – it is a game of sorts .
maybe Michael can give us his take – as this does relate to the topic of “domain testing”.
Michael Berkens says
After a domain expires as we know from Tucows a domain does not have to be released the registrar can just keep it, godaddy holds auctions before the final renewal time and inhouse transfers domain won in its expired auctions.
Of Course –
The question is how long can a registrar hold on to an expired domain before they are forced to renew it
@ Brian Wick, Moniker terms state point blank 22 days before it will take over the domain:
It used to be 21 days in Expiration status, where the domain would still point to where you set the dns, then additional grace in Pending Delete.
Sometimes the expiration on one of my domains, according to Moniker Whosis is a year later, though I didn’t renew it, yet.
Moniker added a clause in Section 6 of its terms:
That’s new, right? Pay the original registrant a portion of the profits? Yet, the Last Updated date at the top of the terms is:
Anyway, the Pending Delete link is missing in my dashboard, and I put a support ticket. I’ll update this thread when I hear back.
Case in point, if you view Moniker Whosis on my domain, ResponsiveTVs.com, there are two expiration dates. At the top, it says, June 8th, 2014. At the bottom, it says, June 8th, 2013, because I didn’t renew it, yet . . .
At first, I was going to use the example of ResponsiveTV.com, but I renewed it. I built on it, and it is one of my higher traffic sites. I’ll leave the plural a couple days, so you can see the two expiration dates on Moniker whosis.
ResponsiveTV.com had two expiration dates until I just renewed it, same as the plural, and it didn’t appear as an offer on Snapnames on the side.
Verisign is promoting Responsive.tv as a premium. I’m sorry, but I created my own label for the new smart tvs, and flew a trademark symbol, and built on it. Responsive.tv is fine as a generic, responsive, but the buyer can never brand as Responsive TV, because it’s my brand.
Dom Nics says
I think this “Domain Sniping” is a nasty practice and needs to far be more transparent.
I have lost a few names when MyDomain.com silently changed their policy to allow them to auction your domain to a third party with 21 days of expiry. They move the domain onto their DNS on actual expiry!
The nasty bit is after 21 days they remove it from your account and you are no longer able to renew it automatically!!!
Needless to say we are in the process of transferring 250 names away from MyDomain…
So, what the hell does the redemption period exist for now? Surely ICANN cannot be too happy, but I think they are busy making bigger scambucks elsewhere… (gTLDS)
Good term, domain sniping!
06/13/2013 01:33 PM | Nilo Garay
Hello Louise, Thank you for contacting us. We have confirmed that the link “Domains Pending Registrar Delete – Renew Now” should show 10 days after the expiration date has passed.
It doesn’t make sense, as the links appear with “0” quantity, so I emailed Marti with a suggestion to make the option appear with zero quanitity, and to update the Updated date of the current terms. No way is the last update 2008.