The Domain King's® thoughts on domain names, web traffic, increasing web sales, success, life, and plain-old Business & Marketing 101. Nothing happens until a sale is made!
What should be the penalty for a Fortune 500 company that is a cybersquatter on Steroids? Going around calling US names when in fact they are engaged in THEFT?
Time to fight fire with fire. We have been called cybersquatters for many years. Now those convicted of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING will be known as CYBERFUCKERS! This evens the playing field! They won't like it! But now at least many companies and their legal representatives are members! Charter Members! Just like us. Except we did nothing wrong and they did.
Maybe we will upgrade their name to something more mainstream, but for now they are what they are!
They will try and muddy up the water with what is coming, but as they are EXPOSED by us, they will retreat. The next CYBERFUCKER that comes after me is going to FEDERAL COURT and I am going to show the world that there IS a penalty for REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIKACKING!
I am going to show via a jury of my peers that when you take a CYBERFUCKER to court, you win and you win big. I wish it was me and P&G. But I will get my chance and I will take it. When these FUCKERS try and steal a domain it is more than property. They are stealing your dream, your lively-hood and when they get caught, the ONLY way to fight the is in the light of day and make sure their own customers watch it!
Don't want to be a Cyber Fucker? It's easy. Just don't engage in REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING. If you do, you get all types of labels and names put on you. Most would just call you thieves. But I like something more colorful. Memorable. Descriptive as I can and as I did right here.
Have a GREAT day CyberFuckers! The greatest penalty of all. Circulation of your bad deeds!
I'll clean it up in a few days, but I want to be on the record of exactly how I feel about these SCUM COMPANIES and the Attorneys that they use that represent them that KNOW BETTER! They CONSPIRE to STEAL and we have PROOF! I will use that proof every chance I get and ONE DAY it will EXPLODE in their face and their PR departments will go ape shit.
And one more thing....oh let me save that for another post!
But in the meantime, here is to RELEVANCE without SEO. Always time for that!
Now I have to focus on RDNH but I prefer to spell it out so everyone understands it. I am not that lazy that if it takes 1 MILLION times to write out REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING then I will write REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING those 1 million times until everyone on my list has their own page!
You all know this was coming. I had to go out and buy some more tar and feathers for these folks that many have labeled as THIEVES and I now call FUCKERS! CYBERFUCKERS from now on. For those DOMAINERS that have to go out of their way to tell me that they are sick of these posts, you ain't much better than the cyberfuckers themselves in my book. So get out of way!
Complainant isHorizon Publishing, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Marc J. Kesten of Marc J. Kesten, P.L., Florida, USA and the domain name is Opulence.com
I guess these 'CyberFuckers' did not read my posts. Especially this one and the reason these would-be THIEVES are now called FUCKERS in my book and TODAY we have the new term of CyberFuckers.com. A group that will circulate to every corner of the Internet within time.
Now I am sure all you THIEVES don't like that. But I don't know a SOUL on the planet that likes a thief, so I am UPGRADING you to fuckers! Why? READ WHY HERE!
Both client and attorney are GUILTY!
So Mr. Attorney, you know you had no legal or moral leg to stand on and instead of honoring your oath, you get enlisted as a CO-HIJACKER to STEAL! It is one thing to defend a guilty party it is an entirely different thing when AS AN ATTORNEY YOU ACTIVELY PARTICIPATE in what will be a CRIME someday and is attempted THEFT today!
“In bringing its Complaint and as discussed above, Complainant overtly disregards facts and law which should have been well known to Complainant prior to filing; namely that the at-issue domain name domain name was registered about six years prior to Complainant having any possible trademark interest in the OPULENCE mark(s),and that it is black letter in all but very specific circumstances a UDRP complaint must fail when the complainant lacks trademark rights at the time the at-issue domain name was first registered.
Since Complainant, through Counsel, knew, or should have known, that its Complaint should, and likely would, fail but nevertheless choose to file the Complaint anyway, the only purpose for doing so must have been in the hope that the reviewing panel would overlook Complainant’s lack of rights at the time the domain name was registered and erroneously rule in Complainant’s favor. Alternatively, Complainant may have filed its losing Complaint to intimidate an unwitting domain name’s owner into making a favorable deal with Complainant, rather than risk an unfavorable decision where he or she would get nothing. Filing a complaint for either of these purposes represents an abuse of the UDRP process.”
I have 38 such cases so far and this resource has 129. Each win will discourage the next would-be hijacker. A tip of the hat to all owners below that fought and a big congrats to the attorney that represented them! I will list any and all cases as I learn of them. In time we hope decisions like these will will make the next IDIOT think twice before they attempt to STEAL something they have no legal or moral rights to. We now OWN YOUR REPUTATION and we will circulate!
And a special tip of the hat to John Berryhill who is the leading RDNH attorney in the world. I am counting and will post how many wins he has recorded on behalf of his clients. I would guess about 1/3 of all decisions. So if you are up against Berryhill or Neu or Goldberger, or Keating or a few others, good luck! You'll need it. Save yourself a great loss and embarrassment and WITHDRAW your case and send the other party their expense money and then get down to this thing we call 'Capitalism' and NEGOTIATE!!
Otherwise you get to be labeled what 'I' want to label you as and you will be tagged with that DESERVED recognition each and every time a new client does a search to find the good, the bad and the ugly. Want to know which group 'Fuckers' will end up in.
The PUBLIC now OWNS the reputation of each of these companies. They are now BRANDED in the most despicable way and so all the $$$ they spent to familiarize us with their products just got a mighty damaging blow.
And with each conviction I will be a bigger PRICK than the post before UNTIL this crap stops and will begin the tedius job of making REVERSE DOMAIN HIJACKING a CRIMINAL offense as we move forward.
If you are on thin ice, and found out to be GUILTY, you and your company will be listed right here and in all future blog posts and interviews relating to this and I reserve my right to use your attempted theft at every chance I get. Let the PUBLIC decide who is the THIEF! Who is the party found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING! Each case will be included in the book I am writing as well.
Case #3 CinemaCity.com The Complainant is Prime Pictures LLC of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), represented by Law offices of Vince Ravine, PC, United States of America (“USA”). Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #4 CollectiveMedia.com The Complainant is Collective Media, Inc., New York, United States of America, represented by Lowenstein Sandler PC, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #7 Mess.com Kiwi Shoe Polish Company, The Complainant is Mess Enterprises, San Francisco, California, of United States of America, represented by Steve Clinton, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #8 Goldline.com The Complainant is Goldline International, Inc., represented by Spataro & Associates is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #10 CarSales.com The Complainant is carsales.com.au Limited of Burwood, Victoria, Australia represented by Corrs Chambers, Westgarth, Australia is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #11 Proto.com The Complainant is Proto Software, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Byron Binkley, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #12 TrailBlazer.com The Complainant is Trailblazer Learning, Inc. dba Trailblazer, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America, Self-represented by Brett W. Company COO, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.
Case #13 DreamGirls.com The Complainant is Dreamgirls, Inc., Tampa, Florida, United States of America, represented by Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, Los Angeles, California, United States of America and have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case #15 Windsor.com Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Windsor Fashions, Inc., a California corporation with a principal place of business in Los Angeles, California, United States of America. Complainant is represented in this proceeding by Abraham M. Rudy, Esq. and Julie Waldman, Esq., Weisman, Wolff, Bergman, Coleman, Grodin & Evall LLP, Beverly Hills, California, United States of America. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case #16 Mindo.com Complainants are Scandinavian Leadership AB and Mindo AB of Uppsala, Sweden, internally represented. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 17 and Sha.com he Complainant is Albir Hills Resort, S.A. of Alfaz del Pi Alicante, Spain, represented by PADIMA, Abogados y Agentes de Propiedad Industrial, S.L., Spain. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 18 etatil.com The Complainants are ÖZALTUN OTELCİLİK TURİZM VE TİCARET LTD. ŞTİ. of Istanbul, Turkey, Allstar Hotels LLC of New York, Unites States of America and Mr. Metin ALTUN of Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Istanbul Patent & Trademark Consultancy Ltd., Turkey. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 19 Takeout.com. Complainant is Tarheel Take-Out, LLC of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented internally. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 20 WallStreet.com The Complainant is Wall-Street.com, LLC of Florida, United States of America (the “United States” or “US”), represented by Flint IP Law, United States. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 21 parvi.org found for the complainant in 2009 but in 2012 the courts rules that theCity of Paris, France was guilty of 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacking' in a landmark case that resulted in a $125,000 judgement against the city.
Case #22 Gtms.com The Complainant is Sustainable Forestry Management Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of Bermuda, with its principal place of business in London, United Kingdom. The Complainant is represented by its general counsel, Mr. Eric Bettelheim. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case #23 PetExpress.com The Complaintant is Airpet Animal Transport, Inc. represented by Mark W. Good of Terra Law LLP, California, USA. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'
Case #24 ColdFront.com Complainant isPersonally Cool Inc. (“Complainant”), New York, USA. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'
Case #25 Unive.com Complainant is Coöperatie Univé U.A. of Arnhem, Netherlands, represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V., Netherlands. 'Given the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding'
Case #26 eCase.com AINS, INC. (“Complainant”), represented by Janice W. Housey of Symbus Law Group, LLC, Virginia, USA. The panel concludes that the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Case #27 TinyPrint.com Complainant is Tiny Prints, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA 'Complaint was brought in bad faith and that, accordingly, Complainant has attempted to engage in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking'
Case #28 Enki.com Complainant is Enki LLC(“Complainant”), represented by Eric A. Novikoff, of California, USA. 'This is a frivolous proceeding which should never have been filed by Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant is guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking'
Case #29 SFM.com Complainant is State Fund Mutual Insurance Co. represented by Peter G. Nikolai, of Nikolai & Mersereau, P.A., Minnesota, USA The Panel finds 'Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.'
Case #30 Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
'It is impossible to believe that the Complainant, who employs ultra-sophisticated marketing methods, was not aware that the disputed domain name, <swash.com>, had been registered and used by other entities for some years when the Complainant introduced its SWASH product line in 2009.
The entire Panel finds it more extraordinary still that in its Complaint the Complainant represented the SWASH brand to be a worldwide brand of longstanding with multi-million dollar sales, stating that over the last 4 years alone the brand had gained sales of over USD 40,000,000. When this was challenged by the Respondent, the Complainant was forced to admit that the brand had only been on the market for 4 years, that sales had been restricted to the USA and that sales over those four years had totaled underUSD 60,000.
Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.
In all of the circumstances present here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has abused the process in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking in contravention of the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel majority also finds the Complainant has attempted reverse domain name hijacking because it must have known that the Respondent did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004.'
Case #31 3dCafe.com Complainant is 3DCafe, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. The panel finds 'Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.'
Case #32 xPand.com The Complainant is X6D Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America. 'The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking: The Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith.'
Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:
“Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”
The general conditions for a finding of bad faith on the part of a complainant are well stated in Smart Design LLC v. Carolyn Hughes,WIPO Case No. D2000-0993 (October 18, 2000):
“Clearly, the launching of an unjustifiable Complaint with malice aforethought qualifies, as would the pursuit of a Complaint after the Complainant knew it to be insupportable.”
These conditions are confirmed in Goldline International, Inc. v. Gold Line,WIPO Case No. D2000-1151 (January 4, 2001) and Sydney Opera House Trust v. Trilynx Pty. Limited,WIPO Case No. D2000-1224 (October 31, 2000) (where the condition is stated as “the respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the complainant in the face of such knowledge”), which in turn cites Plan Express Inc. v. Plan Express, WIPO Case No. D2000-0565 (July 17, 2000).
The Complainant knew when it filed the Complaint that the registration of the disputed domain name preceded by several years any rights that the Complainant may have acquired in the mark WEB PASS. Indeed, the Complainant annexes a printout of the WhoIs registration to the Complaint, and that printout indicates that the domain name was created well before the Complainant’s first use in commerce of its mark. In this Panel’s view, this is sufficient to find reverse domain name hijacking. See NetDeposit, Inc. v. NetDeposit.com, WIPO Case No.D2003-0365 (July 22, 2003) (finding reverse domain name hijacking because “Respondent's domain name registration preceded the Complainant's creation of its trademark rights”).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Case #34 BSA.com Complainant is Bin Shabib & Associates (BSA) LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Jimmy Haoula, United Arab Emirates.
The panel finds that Complainant has failed to present any evidence to support its claimed rights in the disputed domain name. It only provided an application for trademark registration which does not establish any enforceable rights under the UDRP. It did not offer any evidence to support a finding of common law rights in the disputed mark. Also, the Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.
SeeNetDepositVerkaik v. Crownonlinemedia.com, D2001-1502 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2002) (“To establish reverse domain name hijacking, Respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the Respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the Complainant in the fact of such knowledge.”); see alsoLabrada Bodybuilding Nutrition, Inc. v. Glisson, FA 250232 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 28, 2004) (finding that complainant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking where it used “the Policy as a tool to simply wrest the disputed domain name in spite of its knowledge that the Complainant was not entitled to that name and hence had no colorable claim under the Policy”).
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. The Panel further finds that Complainant engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.'
Case #35 adjudicate.org.au The Complainant is Adjudicate Today Pty Limited of Mona Vale, New South Wales, Australia represented by Moray & Agnew, Australia. The domain, adjudicate.org.au. Futureworld Consultancy (Pty) Limited v. Online Advice, WIPO Case No. D2003-0297 states that a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking may be made if the Complainant “knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith”. Given that the Complainant would have been aware that the Respondent had a more than negligible adjudication business in Australia at the time the Complaint was filed, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant knew or should have known that it could not prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that this is an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Case #36 Joopa.com Complainant is Edward Smith (“Complainant”), represented by Kuscha Abhyanker of Raj Abhyanker P.C., California, USA. “the Complainant filed its trademark application shortly after it was unable to acquire the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent on acceptable terms. 'The panel finds that failing in this effort, the Complainant undertook to use the Policy to acquire the Disputed Domain Name.” “The panel finds that the Complaint has attempted reverse domain name hijacking in violation of the Rules.”
Case #37 PoliceAuction.com Complainant is Vortal Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Roger N. Behle Jr., of Behle Law Corporation, 575 Anton Boulevard, Suite 710, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. 'Moreover, the Panel finds that filing a UDRP proceeding - which on its face can be qualified as frivolous - without any basis to do so should be construed in the present case as harassing. Here, Complainant admitted it knew that the domain name was registered prior to its using the at-issue mark in commerce. When, as in the present case, Complainant is unable to show trademark rights through use or otherwise which predate registration of the at-issue domain name, then it becomes impossible for it to prevail. In the case before the Panel, there is no way that Complainant could have reasonably expected to prevail and its counsel should have known better.' Vortal Group, Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker and 'counsel should have known better'
Case #38 Opulence.com Complainant isHorizon Publishing, LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Marc J. Kesten of Marc J. Kesten, P.L., Florida, USA. Horizon Publishing, LLC of Fort Lauderdale, Florida is the lastest to be labeled a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER by the governing body.
My hope is this is the last RDNH case I will ever have to post. The reality is this post will be re-posted EVERY SINGLE TIME there is a case of RDNH. Every time and now maybe some value based companies will think twice before flirting with this tactic and come to the bargaining table un good faith instead of being labeled forever with bad faith. The net is written in INK!
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL! Stop trying to steal and start doing BUSINESS! Feel free to repost FAR and WIDE!
Funny thing. I can go on the street and find any NORMAL person and tell them just TWO stories about domains, the power of domains and the value of domains and they completely understand it in less than 10 minutes. I tell them about CubicZirconia.com and I tell them about Hotels.com. They instantly grasp what it is we do and why a domain is so important and valuable.
But CEO's, Presidents, VP's, they require DECADES. So if you don't know and understand that, you will be very frustrated.
Let's think like a moron thinks and see how far it gets us.
Mr. CEO....'The factory is on fire!!' Mr. CEO says, 'go to accounting and see if fighting the fire is in the BUDGET this year.' So you already see why we are dealing with morons because that was basically the answer they had to a unique opportunity in time.
Of course that illustrates things so easy. But it is far worse. Because before you go to accounting you need to have a meeting about it. Then you have to call in several different parts of the organization. Legal has to be there, sales has to be there, accounting has to be there.
Hey morons!! Go home idiots! The factory just burnt down and your job with it.
So the common guy on the street is laughing his ass off right now and the ceo's are spitting fire at me. Screwyou.com. Idiots! You blew it! I can prove it. You will have no real response other than some CRAP about it not being in the budget. So guess what?
We fixed that too. Maybe they could have leased Hotels.com and DISCOVERED the GOLD MINE that it is!
So without further delay, let me bring to you one of my single most famous blog posts that I have ever written. From April 12, 2007. And as you can see I am still ruffling some feathers.
Morning Folks!!
Do you remember a few days ago I said I would 'Ruffle some feathers.' Well that is a promise I can keep with this post. Get ready for some flapping and chirping on a grand order.
Hotels.com is one of my favorite stories because it illustrates the stupidity and failure the majority of Corporate America and Madison Ave have achieved. It is a clear indictment of not only them missing the single biggest opportunity in any of their careers, but 12 years into it and they have yet to figure it out. As I said in point #7 of my April 5th post, the guys that started these companies are rolling in their graves. The people entrusted to run these companies have for the most part failed them.
Now this is not universal. In some cases they did figure it out and I will list a few below. They make my case stronger not weaker. The question is why did some figure it out last century and why are the majority still not figuring it out so far in this century?
Let's start with this undeniable premise. Before you ever plug in a GREAT domain name it is capable of getting type in traffic, it starts gushing from the moment the domain name goes live. Again, may be widely known to domain owners, but possibly not to the folks that would be best served either owning your domain or at least buying the traffic on an exclusive basis. The 'End user.'
How much traffic a domain gets is on a domain by domain basis. A domain like sex.com will likely get somwhere close to 200,000 new visitors every day of the year. A domain like widgets.com gets 500 visitors each day but that is up from 60 last year. Candy.com gets 1000-1500 each day with spikes during holidays. There are many domains that get 1000-25,000 daily visitors and some much more. The reason this natural resource is so important other than the obvious value of a targeted visitor, is the growth factor. If you have zero traffic and you double it you still have zero. Anything other than zero and you will have the wind at your back. Just remember one important point. Word of mouth advertising is still the greatest advertisng medium ever known and online it is even more evident and more valuable.
Here is the story. Earlier this year my partner Howard Neu and I met with the GM at the Hyatt Grand Central Station in New York City to book the T.R.A.F.F.I.C. domain show and live domain auction there for this June. He wanted to understand domain names. So he began to ask some questions.
I used hotels.com as my example. I asked isn't it interesting that with all the hotel chains and all the execs and folks paid to beat the competition that EVERY single person in the hotel business failed and they failed BIG TIME? He was puzzled and looked at me like the old RCA dog on the old lp's. But that was actually a good start cuz it meant he was paying attention.
Imagine if Hyatt had gotten hotels.com. Instead of you being 1 of hundreds of hotels listed including all your competitors and paying for each lead or each booking Hyatt would have received ALL the leads. Would that not increase sales? Would that not increase market share?
Step in Madison Avenue. These folks are sooooo hooked on 'Branding' that they forgot the REASON they brand is to INCREASE SALES. So their REAL job is to increase sales. THAT is ultimate branding. Having your product everywhere. Funny how in time they have LOST SIGHT of that basic core contract. So Madison Avenue failed the hotel industry as well. IMAGINE, of all these high paid execs at all these companies and not a single one could figure it out. Figure that if they own a domain like Hotels.com they would be a leader in their sector. But they are all so hung up on BRANDING that they would rather IGNORE a reservoir of new business. New business snatched directly from the competition.
Even before it was attached to a business plan or went online hotels.com was going to be a million user a day site because it had a substantial traffic base. My guess would be that a domain like that would have gotten somewhere between 25,000 and 50,000 new visitors every day since the moment the domain went live. I guess the corp guys and Madison Avenue saw no value in having their call centers receive 9 to 18 MILLION added calls a YEAR. 9 to 18 MILLION calls that Hyatt would not lose to Marriott or Westin or Hilton or Holiday Inn or Ritz-Carlton or the other way around. They EACH had a chance to lock out the other hotel chains and they ALL missed it. They spend millions on a superbowl ad with results that can't compare and cannot even truly be measured. They let InterActive Corp (operator of Hotels.com) and Barry Diller beat them by disrupting the entire travel industry and for that they will pay dearly for decades to come.
And of course if Hyatt or Hilton or any of the others marketed hotels.com there is no way to even imagine how many tens of millions of leads would have been discovered. Leads that they get FIRST CRACK at getting. First crack at a new customer. First crack at a new reservation. This has no value??
Until folks face the greatest failure of their careers and learn from it they first must see and understand that failure. I don't want to beat these guys up. Really I don't. I am sad to report that 12 years into this and they STILL have no clue just how bad they failed. With 20/20 hindsight you would be hard pressed to find a hotel executive to say they screwed up by not getting hotels .com. What the hell is wrong with you folks??
Johnson and Johnson figured it out. They own baby.com and a LOT more. See how they OWN this sector. How they CONTROL this sector. How that have positioned themselves to lead the next 100 years just like they have lead the past 100 years. THEY GET IT!! Then think what would be the consequences if their competitor got it!
Bank of America owns Loans.com. THEY GET IT!
Barnes and Noble own Books.com. THEY GET IT!
Kraft owns CreamCheese.com. THEY GET IT!
JC Penny owns Gift.com. THEY GET IT!
Calvin Klein owns Underwear.com. THEY GET IT!
So these corporations and their Madison Avenue ad execs deserve recognition. I have a list of about 100 companies that GET IT. I give these folks a tip of the hat. They are probably yelling 'Shut up' at the screen so not everyone figures it out. LOL
Now let's look at a disaster.....and a failure by the same counterparts
Campbells owns MySoup.com. The competition (Knorr) owns Soup.com. Somebody SCREWED up there! They DON'T get it and by the time they figured it out....TOO LATE! How much do you think it will cost Campbell over the next 50 years not having that domain? I would invest in Knorr. They have SHARP people there and they may unseat the leader just like 1-800-flowers gobbled up FTD. That is one of my favorite stories of not keeping up. Here is a business (FTD) that OWNED the sector for 100 years and here comes 1-800-flowers and the tiny fish gobbled up the GIANT fish. The ONLY way Campbells will get soup.com is buying the other company. But they better do it NOW before it goes the other way! Knorr is owned by Unilever.
Imagine if 1-800-flowers did not own flowers.com?? Would not that have been a MAJOR screw up? Well if you can see it there....it is time to apply it to your own sector and see if you pass or fail. The key to all this was that it WAS a 'Unique opportunity in time' because a domain like hotels.com could have been bought a few years back for LESS than the price of a SuperBowl commercial. Today I bet some chains pay the price that could have run many commercials. And what do you think the price of hotels.com is today?? Do we count in hundreds of millions or billions? I think the latter if you could even get to that point.
So the hotel industry and dozens of other industries and their Madison Avenue agencies DON'T GET IT! They are soooo stuck on branding that they just can't GRASP that in the virtual world you can have more than one door. You can have more than one front door. You can market in generic ways. You can do lots oif things you can't do in the real world.
Regardless of all this. Their #1 jobs is to INCREASE SALES. Branding without increasing sales is not branding at all. Branding without using every tool is not building brands it is destroying brands. Branding is a buzz word that means little. SALES is what pays the bills and the salaries. Here they missed the #1 opportunity to increase sales, take market share, grow their business at the expense of the competition and they just sat there and talked about branding and to this very MOMENT still don't get it.
That my friends is a sad indictment of where we are. They are so busy slapping themselves on the back that they BLEW IT! They failed. They continue to fail. To me, this is the single biggest and clearest illustration of their total incompetence.
At least come to the point where you slap your forehead and say....'Oh my goodness, how the hell did we miss that?' Until you get to THAT POINT, there is really little else to say. Defend yourselves all you want. Somebody go do a spreadsheet and show them what it would have looked like today if they did not miss the biggest opportunity they will EVER have to increase sales.
Barry Diller and IAC (InterActive Corp) figured it out when they bought hotels.com and you geniuses will be paying THEM for the next 100 years because you guys FAILED! And you will continue to fail until you can see how badly you messed up. Go take a look at THEIR spreadsheet.
Luckily there are other related domain names. Vacations.com. Ooops, owned by Travelocity. Too late! Do they charge commission too? Motels.com, motel.com, hotel.com, travel.com......Are you guys on Madison Ave. and Corp America getting the picture yet??? Instead of having an income producing ASSET on your ledger you have an EXPENSE!!! DUH! A significant expense. You can either 'Get it' or call me names. Go ahead, give it your best shot. Nothing you can call me can cover up failure of this magnitude. NOTHING!
I rest my case!
Now I know you hear the frustration in my words. 5 years ago you would have had to peel me from the ceiling. But it is not as bad as it seems. I do see a light at the end of the tunnel. I do see a dialogue developing. I just really wanted to be on record and 100% clear of how I see it. I hope this filters up, down and sideways throughout the Corporate world and Madison Avenue. Start with Donny Deutsch and let it circulate down to Main Street.
To dismiss any of these first few posts would just be perpetuating a 12 year failure to understand how a GREAT domain name can grow your business, lead to greater market share, and if you fall asleep at the wheel be prepared for someone to come and disrupt your entire industry no matter what industry you are in.
Have a GREAT Day!
Rick Schwartz
Hotels.com, Campbells and Hyatt are registered Trademarks
This post below is from 2013 but with all talk of SOB's lately and SOB.com pointed here, indulge me while I make an update.
First if you are here about Reverse Domain Name Hijacking the mother of all hijacking came in 2017 in the form of MY domain name Queen.com. Some SCHMUCK in Denmark, Frands Jepsen, did not heed my warnings. Now he is a convicted DOMAIN HIJACKER! Read the entire story right here
So that brings me to 9/26/2017. Thank you President Trump for increasing the value of SOB.com! Now it's for sale. We will trade the domain name for bitcoin. You can inquire as to how many by email.
Now back to my April 2013 post:
Some folks don't like my style. Sure, many domainers don't care about Reverse Domain Name Hijacking because they have no domains anyone would want to steal. So for them, ScrewYou.com. You protect your assets and family the way you see fit and I'll do the same. Except I live in the world of reality and in reality there are still corporate bullies roaming around taking things they are not entitled to legally or morally.
I have been defending these suits as long as they have been in the business of filing them. And it is a business. A BIG business. But it is no longer going to pay off and the risk is going to more than any rational company should be willing to take.
Shortly after the LadyGodiva.com suit between Campbell's and yours truly and when I had first met Howard, I had another interesting conflict with another very large company. In those days, domain owners just rolled over. Not me. I was going to be the mouse that roared because the Internet as a medium was meant to even the playing field and these SOB's were going to have to deal with the new reality.
I do not look for or pick these fights, but I relish them when they come. I relish them because it is these wins that protect my other domains and yours too! This has been a 15 year battle and I have INVESTED tens of thousands of dollars or more protecting my self and then using these cases to INSURE my other domains by defeating corporate bullies trying to take
LadyGodiva.com
GoofOff.com
TSTV.com
And others
and Reverse Domain Name Hijackers.
SaveMe.com
And thankfully 38 decisions on Reverse Domain Name Hijacking by other parties that I chronicle right here, some 130 case at RDNH.com and then a special post for Procter and Gamble that thought they were above all this and could lie to the presiding panel.
DOWN GOES FRAZIER! (look it up, if you don't know what it means)
Now if folks don't learn from this and don't realize if they slap down Procter and Gamble that they will swat you down in the same manner when you do the same thing, they are just schmucks that will get what they deserve. So if that is YOU that I sent here to read this, then PLEASE don't be that schmuck.
But if you ARE that schmuck............think twice. If YOU are convicted of RDNH, Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, No reputation management software will erase the ink. You will be stuck with the consequences of your actions. In time that may be equal to a prison record. I will OWN your reputation and I don't want to. But YOU are calling the shots because YOU are the PREDATOR. So if this rattlesnake bites, just make sure you blame yourself and not me.
Amazingly, not one of these fuckers have ever contacted me after the decision to say congratulations. To say they were sorry. To start a constructive dialogue. To ask if we could work something out. To make a bonafide business offer. These would-be thieves would 'steal' but when they got CAUGHT, never offered to pay. Low life scum comes to mind to describe that behavior.
And when we talk about Procter and Gamble, a domain dispute I was not involved in, famed domain attorney John Berryhill had this to say abot them as reported in DNJournal.com
'The entire premise of the UDRP proceeding was stunningly dishonest. They want the domain name for something else entirely, and concocted an utter work of fiction in order to attempt to stealit.'
Berryhill lays out the facts that prove his points - P&G wasn't interested in the domain because of a failed product they once marketed, they wanted it for a new offering. Unfortunately they didn't want to pay a fair and reasonable market price for it, for some bizarre reason, believing it would be smarter to try to steal it. Next time you look up the phrase 'penny wise and pound foolish' on the web, odds are you will see the P&G logo illustratingthe concept.
It was important enough to lie or steal or attempting both but not important enough to pay for??
FUCKERS! What do you want to call them? The domain in question 'Swash.com' Marchex was willing to let go for $30,000. Not exactly a shake down but an incredibly reasonable price. A domain I will state right here publicly has a high mid-6 figure value in my professional and personal opinion and I would have expected a 7 figure asking price. So $30,000???? What was the COST of the The cost of the action P&G filed? Now it cost them a lot more because this is ON THE RECORD!
'Well, it's not PROFESSIONAL to call them names.' Say some. Fine when PROFESSIONALS stop LYING and trying to STEAL, I'll stop calling them FUCKERS! How's that?
Am I harsh? Hell no! When companies and other folks try to steal from me and others, it would not surprise me if we were not the only folks they did it to. Just a common sense wild guess that I am sure has no merit at all. Right?
And believe me, as harsh as I have been, wait til you see what happens to the next FUCKER that tries and overstep their legal, moral and every other rights in hopes they can get something on the cheap that they have no RIGHTS to. They put their entire company and everyone working there in jeopardy when they mess with me. When they mess with you too. When they try and steal a domain.
Look, sometimes there is a legitimate dispute. The law is seldom black and white. So I respect when there is a true point of contention and then let the chips fall where they may and no hard feelings either way. However, when common sense is thrown by the wayside and folks make things up, then we have a serious mess and I am gonna milk that baby so the next FUCKER learns before they step in the ring.
They will read this. I will point them to it. Their decision whether they want to GAMBLE not only their company's reputation but their personal reputation as well and that of the attorney handling the case. Ya know, the ones that 'Should know better'. Do they really want to do that with all this EVIDENCE for them to see?
I don't sell mercy. I give a FREE WARNING of what might happen if you decide to illegally TRESPASS.
TheDomains.com is reporting A three member UDRP panel has found Edward Smith of California guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) in the attempt grab of the domain name Joopa.com
I have 36 such cases so far and this resource has 129. Each win will discourage the next would-be hijacker. A tip of the hat to all owners below that fought and a big congrats to the attorney that represented them! I will list any and all cases as I learn of them. In time we hope decisions like these will will make the next IDIOT think twice before they attempt to STEAL something they have no legal or moral rights to. We now OWN YOUR REPUTATION and we will circulate!
And a special tip of the hat to John Berryhill who is the leading RDNH attorney in the world. I am counting and will post how many wins he has recorded on behalf of his clients. I would guess about 1/3 of all decisions. So if you are up against Berryhill or Neu or Keating or a few others, good luck! You'll need it. Save yourself a great loss and embarrassment and WITHDRAW your case and send the other party their expense money and then get down to this thing we call 'Capitalism' and NEGOTIATE!!
If you are on thin ice, and found out to be GUILTY, you and your company will be listed right here and in all future blog posts and interviews relating to this and I reserve my right to use your attempted theft at every chance I get. Let the PUBLIC decide who is the THIEF! Who is the party found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING! Each case will be included in the book I am writing as well.
Case #3 CinemaCity.com The Complainant is Prime Pictures LLC of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), represented by Law offices of Vince Ravine, PC, United States of America (“USA”). Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #4 CollectiveMedia.com The Complainant is Collective Media, Inc., New York, United States of America, represented by Lowenstein Sandler PC, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #7 Mess.com Kiwi Shoe Polish Company, The Complainant is Mess Enterprises, San Francisco, California, of United States of America, represented by Steve Clinton, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #8 Goldline.com The Complainant is Goldline International, Inc., represented by Spataro & Associates is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #10 CarSales.com The Complainant is carsales.com.au Limited of Burwood, Victoria, Australia represented by Corrs Chambers, Westgarth, Australia is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #11 Proto.com The Complainant is Proto Software, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Byron Binkley, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #12 TrailBlazer.com The Complainant is Trailblazer Learning, Inc. dba Trailblazer, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America, Self-represented by Brett W. Company COO, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.
Case #13 DreamGirls.com The Complainant is Dreamgirls, Inc., Tampa, Florida, United States of America, represented by Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, Los Angeles, California, United States of America and have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case #15 Windsor.com Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Windsor Fashions, Inc., a California corporation with a principal place of business in Los Angeles, California, United States of America. Complainant is represented in this proceeding by Abraham M. Rudy, Esq. and Julie Waldman, Esq., Weisman, Wolff, Bergman, Coleman, Grodin & Evall LLP, Beverly Hills, California, United States of America. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case #16 Mindo.com Complainants are Scandinavian Leadership AB and Mindo AB of Uppsala, Sweden, internally represented. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 17 and Sha.com he Complainant is Albir Hills Resort, S.A. of Alfaz del Pi Alicante, Spain, represented by PADIMA, Abogados y Agentes de Propiedad Industrial, S.L., Spain. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 18 etatil.com The Complainants are ÖZALTUN OTELCİLİK TURİZM VE TİCARET LTD. ŞTİ. of Istanbul, Turkey, Allstar Hotels LLC of New York, Unites States of America and Mr. Metin ALTUN of Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Istanbul Patent & Trademark Consultancy Ltd., Turkey. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 19 Takeout.com. Complainant is Tarheel Take-Out, LLC of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented internally. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 20 WallStreet.com The Complainant is Wall-Street.com, LLC of Florida, United States of America (the “United States” or “US”), represented by Flint IP Law, United States. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 21 parvi.org found for the complainant in 2009 but in 2012 the courts rules that theCity of Paris, France was guilty of 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacking' in a landmark case that resulted in a $125,000 judgement against the city.
Case #22 Gtms.com The Complainant is Sustainable Forestry Management Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of Bermuda, with its principal place of business in London, United Kingdom. The Complainant is represented by its general counsel, Mr. Eric Bettelheim. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case #23 PetExpress.com The Complaintant is Airpet Animal Transport, Inc. represented by Mark W. Good of Terra Law LLP, California, USA. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'
Case #24 ColdFront.com Complainant isPersonally Cool Inc. (“Complainant”), New York, USA. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'
Case #25 Unive.com Complainant is Coöperatie Univé U.A. of Arnhem, Netherlands, represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V., Netherlands. 'Given the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding'
Case #26 eCase.com AINS, INC. (“Complainant”), represented by Janice W. Housey of Symbus Law Group, LLC, Virginia, USA. The panel concludes that the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Case #27 TinyPrint.com Complainant is Tiny Prints, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA 'Complaint was brought in bad faith and that, accordingly, Complainant has attempted to engage in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking'
Case #28 Enki.com Complainant is Enki LLC(“Complainant”), represented by Eric A. Novikoff, of California, USA. 'This is a frivolous proceeding which should never have been filed by Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant is guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking'
Case #29 SFM.com Complainant is State Fund Mutual Insurance Co. represented by Peter G. Nikolai, of Nikolai & Mersereau, P.A., Minnesota, USA The Panel finds 'Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.'
Case #30 Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
'It is impossible to believe that the Complainant, who employs ultra-sophisticated marketing methods, was not aware that the disputed domain name, <swash.com>, had been registered and used by other entities for some years when the Complainant introduced its SWASH product line in 2009.
The entire Panel finds it more extraordinary still that in its Complaint the Complainant represented the SWASH brand to be a worldwide brand of longstanding with multi-million dollar sales, stating that over the last 4 years alone the brand had gained sales of over USD 40,000,000. When this was challenged by the Respondent, the Complainant was forced to admit that the brand had only been on the market for 4 years, that sales had been restricted to the USA and that sales over those four years had totaled underUSD 60,000.
Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.
In all of the circumstances present here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has abused the process in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking in contravention of the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel majority also finds the Complainant has attempted reverse domain name hijacking because it must have known that the Respondent did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004.'
Case #31 3dCafe.com Complainant is 3DCafe, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. The panel finds 'Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.'
Case #32 xPand.com The Complainant is X6D Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America. 'The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking: The Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith.'
Case #33 Webpass.com The Complainant is Webpass, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America represented by Law Office of Richard J. Greenstone, United States of America.
D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:
“Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”
The general conditions for a finding of bad faith on the part of a complainant are well stated in Smart Design LLC v. Carolyn Hughes,WIPO Case No. D2000-0993 (October 18, 2000):
“Clearly, the launching of an unjustifiable Complaint with malice aforethought qualifies, as would the pursuit of a Complaint after the Complainant knew it to be insupportable.”
These conditions are confirmed in Goldline International, Inc. v. Gold Line,WIPO Case No. D2000-1151 (January 4, 2001) and Sydney Opera House Trust v. Trilynx Pty. Limited,WIPO Case No. D2000-1224 (October 31, 2000) (where the condition is stated as “the respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the complainant in the face of such knowledge”), which in turn cites Plan Express Inc. v. Plan Express, WIPO Case No. D2000-0565 (July 17, 2000).
The Complainant knew when it filed the Complaint that the registration of the disputed domain name preceded by several years any rights that the Complainant may have acquired in the mark WEB PASS. Indeed, the Complainant annexes a printout of the WhoIs registration to the Complaint, and that printout indicates that the domain name was created well before the Complainant’s first use in commerce of its mark. In this Panel’s view, this is sufficient to find reverse domain name hijacking. See NetDeposit, Inc. v. NetDeposit.com, WIPO Case No.D2003-0365 (July 22, 2003) (finding reverse domain name hijacking because “Respondent's domain name registration preceded the Complainant's creation of its trademark rights”).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Case #34 BSA.com Complainant is Bin Shabib & Associates (BSA) LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Jimmy Haoula, United Arab Emirates.
The panel finds that Complainant has failed to present any evidence to support its claimed rights in the disputed domain name. It only provided an application for trademark registration which does not establish any enforceable rights under the UDRP. It did not offer any evidence to support a finding of common law rights in the disputed mark. Also, the Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.
SeeNetDepositVerkaik v. Crownonlinemedia.com, D2001-1502 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2002) (“To establish reverse domain name hijacking, Respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the Respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the Complainant in the fact of such knowledge.”); see alsoLabrada Bodybuilding Nutrition, Inc. v. Glisson, FA 250232 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 28, 2004) (finding that complainant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking where it used “the Policy as a tool to simply wrest the disputed domain name in spite of its knowledge that the Complainant was not entitled to that name and hence had no colorable claim under the Policy”).
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. The Panel further finds that Complainant engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.'
Case #35 adjudicate.org.au The Complainant is Adjudicate Today Pty Limited of Mona Vale, New South Wales, Australia represented by Moray & Agnew, Australia. The domain, adjudicate.org.au. Futureworld Consultancy (Pty) Limited v. Online Advice, WIPO Case No. D2003-0297 states that a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking may be made if the Complainant “knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith”. Given that the Complainant would have been aware that the Respondent had a more than negligible adjudication business in Australia at the time the Complaint was filed, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant knew or should have known that it could not prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that this is an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Case #36 Joopa.com Complainant is Edward Smith (“Complainant”), represented by Kuscha Abhyanker of Raj Abhyanker P.C., California, USA. “the Complainant filed its trademark application shortly after it was unable to acquire the Disputed Domain Name from the Respondent on acceptable terms. 'The panel finds that failing in this effort, the Complainant undertook to use the Policy to acquire the Disputed Domain Name.” “The panel finds that the Complaint has attempted reverse domain name hijacking in violation of the Rules.”
Case #37 PoliceAuction.com Complainant is Vortal Group, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Roger N. Behle Jr., of Behle Law Corporation, 575 Anton Boulevard, Suite 710, Costa Mesa, CA 92626. 'Moreover, the Panel finds that filing a UDRP proceeding - which on its face can be qualified as frivolous - without any basis to do so should be construed in the present case as harassing. Here, Complainant admitted it knew that the domain name was registered prior to its using the at-issue mark in commerce. When, as in the present case, Complainant is unable to show trademark rights through use or otherwise which predate registration of the at-issue domain name, then it becomes impossible for it to prevail. In the case before the Panel, there is no way that Complainant could have reasonably expected to prevail and its counsel should have known better.' Vortal Group, Inc. is a convicted Reverse Domain Name Hijacker and 'counsel should have known better'
My hope is this is the last RDNH case I will ever have to post. The reality is this post will be re-posted EVERY SINGLE TIME there is a case of RDNH. Every time and now maybe some value based companies will think twice before flirting with this tactic and come to the bargaining table un good faith instead of being labeled forever with bad faith. The net is written in INK!
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL! Stop trying to steal and start doing BUSINESS! Feel free to repost FAR and WIDE!
Here we go again! ANOTHER decision of 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacking has just come down and this time we have to go down under.
The Complainant is Adjudicate Today Pty Limited of Mona Vale, New South Wales, Australia represented by Moray & Agnew, Australia. The domain, adjudicate.org.au.
I have 35 such cases so far and each win will discourage the next would-be hijacker. A tip of the hat to all owners below that fought and a big congrats to the attorney that represented them! I will list any and all cases as I learn of them. In time we hope decisions like these will will make the next IDIOT think twice before tey attempt to STEAL something they have no legal or moral rights to.
And a special tip of the hat to John Berryhill who is the leading RDNH attorney in the world. I am counting and will post how many wins he has recorded on behalf of his clients. I would guess about 1/3 of all decisions. So if you are up against Berryhill or Neu or Keating or a few others, good luck! You'll need it. Save yourself a great loss and embarrassment and WITHDRAW your case and send the other party their expense money and then get down to this thing we call 'Capitalism' and NEGOTIATE!!
If you are on thin ice, and found out to be GUILTY, you and your company will be listed right here and in all future blog posts and interviews relating to this and I reserve my right to use your attempted theft at every chance I get. Let the PUBLIC decide who is the THIEF! Who is the party found GUILTY of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING! Each case will be included in the book I am writing as well.
Case #3 CinemaCity.com The Complainant is Prime Pictures LLC of Dubai, United Arab Emirates (“UAE”), represented by Law offices of Vince Ravine, PC, United States of America (“USA”). Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #4 CollectiveMedia.com The Complainant is Collective Media, Inc., New York, United States of America, represented by Lowenstein Sandler PC, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #7 Mess.com Kiwi Shoe Polish Company, The Complainant is Mess Enterprises, San Francisco, California, of United States of America, represented by Steve Clinton, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #8 Goldline.com The Complainant is Goldline International, Inc., represented by Spataro & Associates is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #10 CarSales.com The Complainant is carsales.com.au Limited of Burwood, Victoria, Australia represented by Corrs Chambers, Westgarth, Australia is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #11 Proto.com The Complainant is Proto Software, Inc., New York, New York, United States of America, represented by Byron Binkley, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
Case #12 TrailBlazer.com The Complainant is Trailblazer Learning, Inc. dba Trailblazer, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America, Self-represented by Brett W. Company COO, Caledonia, Michigan, United States of America is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker.
Case #13 DreamGirls.com The Complainant is Dreamgirls, Inc., Tampa, Florida, United States of America, represented by Christensen, Miller, Fink, Jacobs, Glaser, Weil & Shapiro, LLP, Los Angeles, California, United States of America and have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case #15 Windsor.com Complainant in this administrative proceeding is Windsor Fashions, Inc., a California corporation with a principal place of business in Los Angeles, California, United States of America. Complainant is represented in this proceeding by Abraham M. Rudy, Esq. and Julie Waldman, Esq., Weisman, Wolff, Bergman, Coleman, Grodin & Evall LLP, Beverly Hills, California, United States of America. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case #16 Mindo.com Complainants are Scandinavian Leadership AB and Mindo AB of Uppsala, Sweden, internally represented. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 17 and Sha.com he Complainant is Albir Hills Resort, S.A. of Alfaz del Pi Alicante, Spain, represented by PADIMA, Abogados y Agentes de Propiedad Industrial, S.L., Spain. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 18 etatil.com The Complainants are ÖZALTUN OTELCİLİK TURİZM VE TİCARET LTD. ŞTİ. of Istanbul, Turkey, Allstar Hotels LLC of New York, Unites States of America and Mr. Metin ALTUN of Istanbul, Turkey, represented by Istanbul Patent & Trademark Consultancy Ltd., Turkey. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 19 Takeout.com. Complainant is Tarheel Take-Out, LLC of Chapel Hill, North Carolina, United States of America (“U.S.”), represented internally. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 20 WallStreet.com The Complainant is Wall-Street.com, LLC of Florida, United States of America (the “United States” or “US”), represented by Flint IP Law, United States. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case # 21 parvi.org found for the complainant in 2009 but in 2012 the courts rules that theCity of Paris, France was guilty of 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacking' in a landmark case that resulted in a $125,000 judgement against the city.
Case #22 Gtms.com The Complainant is Sustainable Forestry Management Limited, a company incorporated under the laws of Bermuda, with its principal place of business in London, United Kingdom. The Complainant is represented by its general counsel, Mr. Eric Bettelheim. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'.
Case #23 PetExpress.com The Complaintant is Airpet Animal Transport, Inc. represented by Mark W. Good of Terra Law LLP, California, USA. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'
Case #24 ColdFront.com Complainant isPersonally Cool Inc. (“Complainant”), New York, USA. They have been labeled a 'Reverse Domain Name Hijacker'
Case #25 Unive.com Complainant is Coöperatie Univé U.A. of Arnhem, Netherlands, represented by Novagraaf Nederland B.V., Netherlands. 'Given the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding'
Case #26 eCase.com AINS, INC. (“Complainant”), represented by Janice W. Housey of Symbus Law Group, LLC, Virginia, USA. The panel concludes that the Complaint was brought in bad faith in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Case #27 TinyPrint.com Complainant is Tiny Prints, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by CitizenHawk, Inc., California, USA 'Complaint was brought in bad faith and that, accordingly, Complainant has attempted to engage in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking'
Case #28 Enki.com Complainant is Enki LLC(“Complainant”), represented by Eric A. Novikoff, of California, USA. 'This is a frivolous proceeding which should never have been filed by Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant is guilty of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking'
Case #29 SFM.com Complainant is State Fund Mutual Insurance Co. represented by Peter G. Nikolai, of Nikolai & Mersereau, P.A., Minnesota, USA The Panel finds 'Complainant has engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.'
Case #30 Swash.com Complainant Procter and Gamble Represented by Keating Muething & Klekamp PLL. Procter and Gamble is a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker
'It is impossible to believe that the Complainant, who employs ultra-sophisticated marketing methods, was not aware that the disputed domain name, <swash.com>, had been registered and used by other entities for some years when the Complainant introduced its SWASH product line in 2009.
The entire Panel finds it more extraordinary still that in its Complaint the Complainant represented the SWASH brand to be a worldwide brand of longstanding with multi-million dollar sales, stating that over the last 4 years alone the brand had gained sales of over USD 40,000,000. When this was challenged by the Respondent, the Complainant was forced to admit that the brand had only been on the market for 4 years, that sales had been restricted to the USA and that sales over those four years had totaled underUSD 60,000.
Had the Respondent failed to respond, there is a very real risk that the Panel, relying upon the 1993 International registration and the substantial sales volumes claimed for the brand, would have found in favor of the Complainant. This Complaint fell very far short of what the Panel was entitled to expect from a Complainant of this stature.
In all of the circumstances present here, the Panel finds that the Complainant has abused the process in an attempt at reverse domain name hijacking in contravention of the UDRP Rules at paragraph 15(e). The Panel majority also finds the Complainant has attempted reverse domain name hijacking because it must have known that the Respondent did not know of (nor had any reason to be aware of) any relevant trade mark rights in the SWASH name when the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2004.'
Case #31 3dCafe.com Complainant is 3DCafe, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Danielle I. Mattessich of Merchant & Gould, P.C., Minnesota, USA. The panel finds 'Complainant acted in bad faith. The Panel therefore makes a finding of reverse domain name hijacking.'
Case #32 xPand.com The Complainant is X6D Limited of Limassol, Cyprus, represented by Bracewell & Giuliani LLP, United States of America. 'The Panel therefore accepts the Respondent’s allegation that the Complainant is using the UDRP as an alternative purchase strategy after the acquisition of the disputed domain name failed. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, in an attempt of reverse domain name hijacking: The Complainant knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered in bad faith.'
Case #33 Webpass.com The Complainant is Webpass, Inc. of San Francisco, California, United States of America represented by Law Office of Richard J. Greenstone, United States of America.
D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines Reverse Domain Name Hijacking:
“Reverse Domain Name Hijacking means using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name.”
The general conditions for a finding of bad faith on the part of a complainant are well stated in Smart Design LLC v. Carolyn Hughes,WIPO Case No. D2000-0993 (October 18, 2000):
“Clearly, the launching of an unjustifiable Complaint with malice aforethought qualifies, as would the pursuit of a Complaint after the Complainant knew it to be insupportable.”
These conditions are confirmed in Goldline International, Inc. v. Gold Line,WIPO Case No. D2000-1151 (January 4, 2001) and Sydney Opera House Trust v. Trilynx Pty. Limited,WIPO Case No. D2000-1224 (October 31, 2000) (where the condition is stated as “the respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the complainant in the face of such knowledge”), which in turn cites Plan Express Inc. v. Plan Express, WIPO Case No. D2000-0565 (July 17, 2000).
The Complainant knew when it filed the Complaint that the registration of the disputed domain name preceded by several years any rights that the Complainant may have acquired in the mark WEB PASS. Indeed, the Complainant annexes a printout of the WhoIs registration to the Complaint, and that printout indicates that the domain name was created well before the Complainant’s first use in commerce of its mark. In this Panel’s view, this is sufficient to find reverse domain name hijacking. See NetDeposit, Inc. v. NetDeposit.com, WIPO Case No.D2003-0365 (July 22, 2003) (finding reverse domain name hijacking because “Respondent's domain name registration preceded the Complainant's creation of its trademark rights”).
The Panel finds that the Complainant has attempted Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Case #34 BSA.com Complainant is Bin Shabib & Associates (BSA) LLP (“Complainant”), represented by Jimmy Haoula, United Arab Emirates.
The panel finds that Complainant has failed to present any evidence to support its claimed rights in the disputed domain name. It only provided an application for trademark registration which does not establish any enforceable rights under the UDRP. It did not offer any evidence to support a finding of common law rights in the disputed mark. Also, the Panel finds that Complainant knew or should have known that it was unable to prove that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name or that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Based on the foregoing, the panel finds that reverse domain name hijacking has occurred.
SeeNetDepositVerkaik v. Crownonlinemedia.com, D2001-1502 (WIPO Mar. 19, 2002) (“To establish reverse domain name hijacking, Respondent must show knowledge on the part of the complainant of the Respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name and evidence of harassment or similar conduct by the Complainant in the fact of such knowledge.”); see alsoLabrada Bodybuilding Nutrition, Inc. v. Glisson, FA 250232 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 28, 2004) (finding that complainant engaged in reverse domain name hijacking where it used “the Policy as a tool to simply wrest the disputed domain name in spite of its knowledge that the Complainant was not entitled to that name and hence had no colorable claim under the Policy”).
Having failed to establish all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED. The Panel further finds that Complainant engaged in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.'
Case #35 adjudicate.org.au The Complainant is Adjudicate Today Pty Limited of Mona Vale, New South Wales, Australia represented by Moray & Agnew, Australia. The domain, adjudicate.org.au. Futureworld Consultancy (Pty) Limited v. Online Advice, WIPO Case No. D2003-0297 states that a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking may be made if the Complainant “knew or should have known at the time it filed the Complaint that it could not prove that the domain name was registered or used in bad faith”. Given that the Complainant would have been aware that the Respondent had a more than negligible adjudication business in Australia at the time the Complaint was filed, the Panel is of the opinion that the Complainant knew or should have known that it could not prove that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that this is an instance of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
My hope is this is the last RDNH case I will ever have to post. The reality is this post will be re-posted EVERY SINGLE TIME there is a case of RDNH. Every time and now maybe some value based companies will think twice before flirting with this tactic and come to the bargaining table un good faith instead of being labeled forever with bad faith. The net is written in INK!
THOU SHALT NOT STEAL! Stop trying to steal and start doing BUSINESS! Feel free to repost FAR and WIDE!
How long will I continue to write about Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)? Until my domains and your domains and the domains of every mom and pop operation in the world are safe from predators like Procter and Gamble and the other 33 companies listed HERE.
I respect trademark holders. I am one. I understand. I get it. I can see it from both sides. I know what infringing is and looks like. But I also know what stealing is and looks like. So my job is to make a DEEP impression on the next company engaging in RDNH.
If you are a TM owner and you think some domain is worthy of a UDRP, you better make sure that if the respondent goes after you for Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, that you are on solid ground. If not, you have a MAJOR decision in LIFE! Read that again. IN LIFE! Because if you screw up on this, it will affect your life and that of your company.
You have to decide if the reputation of your entire company is worth it. You have to decide if MONEY is a better and safer alternative. You can no longer just think you can walk away with a domain name just because you want it. There is a marketplace and that's the arena that this all belongs in. So when you go out of the marketplace, you get what you get.
What would YOU have advised Procter and Gamble to do now that you KNOW it blew up in their face? What would you do? $30,000 to sell your companies reputation?? If the GIANT goes down, what is your shot? A $79 Billion dollar company has all the resources in the world and look where they ended up. As a Reverse Domain Name Hijacker found guilty of lying to a governing panel. I did not put that blemish on their name. I did not stain their name. They did that all be themselves. But I will be the PRICK that points it out at every opportunity because that's all we have. And ya know what? That will get it done!
You really want to gamble the future of YOUR company on the SAME BET Procter and Gamble took and LOST?? Do you really?
Then you are a total schmuck and you deserve to get treated like one. How's that?
Sorry, I don't have to be respectful of thieves and those thinking about stealing. My assets are GENERATIONAL and you can go to hell trying to get what my FAMILY owns! I took the risk and I paid to play!
Folks that are abusing the process and lose suffer no criminal or legal penalty as of today. That WILL change. But until then, our job is to tar and feather their deeds. Let folks know what the company they do business with is up to. Let them know their values. Let them know how they think. How they try and steal.
And remember this, in cases of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, that is a subject people will know more about in the future not less about. Our job is to discuss, write and HAUNT them. That's the only penalty and leverage we have at this UNTIL companies stop doing this. How does that happen? This is the way that happens. Words are very powerful. Thoughts are very powerful. Deeds are things you live with.
I want Procter and Gamble to do what is right. Why should they? It's their record. It's their name. It's their problem. And maybe doing what's right is actually something they should consider.
So the more people that know and find out the more the outrage. Someday these horse thieves of this century will pay a legal price. Until then these would-be horse thieves and cattle rustlers have to deal with whatever public fallout may occur as INFORMATION is circulated.
Our results may be invisible to us but it is not invisible. It takes its toll. Cut after cut. Punch after punch. The key is never to stop. And I never will. Its the ONLY way to protect our assets until the law catches up with this practice or companies stop engaging in Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.
Common sense shows that stealing is wrong and for BIG companies to resort to stealing is pretty startling to the regular folks. That crap just does not fly for people with morals and values. Maybe a big company like P&G, that sold their stellar reputation for $30,000 should come out and say so! They sold their reputation to you and me. They no longer control it.
So these companies seem to lack morals and values and we will expose that to as many folks as possible as often as possible until THEY come out and address their misdeeds or criminal penalties are enacted. That's how I see it. You can all forget about it tomorrow. Somebody has to make sure the torch and the flame move on.
So if you file an action against a domain holder and they come back at you with a claim of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.....you better RETHINK what you are doing. Is it worth it? Would Procter and Gamble give $30,000 today if it knew what was about to happen?
Just plain DUMB, FOOLISH and costly and this is all in ink and every company pulling this crap will have a virtual 'Scarlet Letter' pinned to their name for the rest of time.
You just can't make this stuff up! Are they clueless? Are they out of touch? How do you excuse this colossal screw up? For $30,000, somebody or some department or departments PLUS their attorneys made a decision to put the reputation of Procter and Gamble on the line. For $30,000!!!!!!!!!!
You guys fill in the adjectives. I am off the rails on this. I just can't believe what I just read. Besides that, they were getting a BARGAIN for a domain like that. $30k??!! GEEZ! How do you not call the folks involved MORONS?? And worse!?
However you can start to fix it! What say you?? Isn't it worth the attempt? It can only get worse as the news spreads and it is spreading.
Ok, not me, then how about Cavuto? Go on his show. EXPLAIN who and why. You don't think heads should roll? Do you really think you can ignore this? What IDIOT is responsible?
This is outrageous and if I were you I would be fuming at this! 172 years came and went and a stellar brand has now been branded a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER! If you IGNORE this then I would interpret that as nothing learned.
Procter and Gamble (P&G) has been found GUILTY of trying to REVERSE HIJACK a domain that they did not own via an ABUSE of the governing body and LIED during the process. Saying they did $40 Million in business n the swash product when in FACT it was $60,000. That ain't just a little fib. That is misleading the governing body to influence them with a LIE! And if it were not for the attorney, Mr. Berryhill, it may never have come to light. (You can read some of his comments about the case here)
That is now around the neck of Procter and Gamble until they use their influence to PROTECT domain owners not ABUSE domain owners! To do business the right way and not THAT way! They have been doing this a long time. They KNOW the rules. But they decided to abuse those rules instead of abiding by those rules.
My question and yours now should be, HOW MANY OTHER TIMES AND TO OTHER PEOPLE DID PROCTER AND GAMBLE DO THIS TO?? HOW MANY DID NOT OR COULD NOT DEFEND THEMSELVES? How many of your 8000+ domain names have been gotten through less than honorable means?
Don't like those questions? TOO BAD! They are coming and they will continue to come. This MAY be the tip of the iceberg and I think we have a right to find out. Especially if the company does not address this directly. It's their reputation and right now and for the first time in 172 years, they don't control it.
Procter and Gamble has been a beacon of marketing for generations! It's one of America's finest companies. It HAD a stellar name. It hurts to go after a company I have admired and learned from all my life. This is not fun. Painful in fact. But I know a vaccine when I see one. I know this will be a HUGE lesson for the next guy. That's what this is about for me. An Inoculation to protect me and you and all domain owners big and small. Let them watch what happens when you get tagged with being a REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKER (RDNH).
I am upset and I have nothing to do with your company and don't own any stock in it. So if the folks that work there are not 100x as outraged as I am, that the name of a GREAT company has been FOREVER SOILED, then they are just CHUMPS that don't get it and there are 2 MEN rolling in their graves who would not be proud of this day or them. That's my opinion and I think the facts support that opinion.
We are starting to learn about the details of this unbelievable case involving Procter and Gamble. Now prepare to fall on the floor over stupidity and just being a cheap chump.
BizJournals is reporting: 'P&G asked Marchex in March 2012 to give it the name in exchange for registration and transfer costs. Receiving no response, it then offered $600. Marchex refused and asked for $30,000.'
So a 172 year old company got THIS and all the rest to come for not paying a LOUSY $30,000 for this $79 BILLION dollar company and had to try and STEAL the domain by LYING!?
The lie? They said they sold $40 MILLION on the Swash product when in FACT it was $60,000.
Just wanted to give you some important mid summer
updates.
T.R.A.F.F.I.C. is #1 because we set the pace and
are not afraid to try new things. The first silent domain auction, the first
live domain auction and now, with that in mind, T.R.A.F.F.I.C. is proud to
present another ground breaking first in the industry.
For the first
time at any domain show we are going to have multiple live auctions presented by
multiple auction houses. This is going to be a game changer! Howard and I have
nothing to sell. Our job is to promote the industry as best we can and also be
as inclusive as we can. In tough times like this there will actually be an
increase in domain acquisitions. Domains that would have never been sold will
now be on the auction block. Plus, with multiple companies promoting the live
TRAFFIC auctions in New York City, the bidding action and
excitement will be better than ever. Multiple companies trying to include end
users. Multiple companies competing for the best domains. Multiple companies
offering different type inventories at competitive prices. Multiple auctions with multiple auctioneers and different styles of auction.
As is stands now we believe there will be up to 5 different auction companies holding live domain auctions in New York City
in September. Moniker will continue to be the 'Premiere' auction at T.R.A.F.F.I.C. as
they have been. As you might imagine, this was not an easy decision. Monte and his crew have done a great service to us all over the years. Just sometimes what is good for one company may not be in the best interest of an entire industry. So kudos to Moniker for doing what others would not do when none of us knew the outcome.
Last year the New York TRAFFIC show produced a record breaking
$12M in auction sales. I believe that is more than all other live domain auctions at other shows
combined for both 2007 and 2008!! We have the right location at the right time
with the best domain audience.Including other
auction houses will be effective, good for the growth of the industry, make
things very exciting and open things up that will create lots of energy. Like I
said, this is a game changer and we are all big winners. More info will be
released soon.
We will also be announcing a T.R.A.F.F.I.C.
REWARD PROGRAM later this summer. This program will give perks/discounts to
future TRAFFIC shows starting at our San Francisco/Silicon Valley show next
April. Those spending $10,000 or more at the auction will be eligible for those
rewards. The reward program will be in effect during the New York City show in
September. The more you spend, the more perks you get.
That's about it. We are working hard to make sure
that TRAFFIC keeps way ahead of the pack. Since 2004 we have set the tone and
agenda for the industry by always providing cutting edge and trailblazing ideas
and agendas. Howard and I take great risks in an effort to bring the industry to
the forefront of marketing. Mix that with the biggest and the best and you get
TRAFFIC. We don't know the result of multiple auctions but it is going be a fun
thing to watch unfold. I expect we will announce the participants as early as
this week. I will update this blog with the companies as those companies commit.
Not only will this transform the domain aftermarket, it will transform the
auction houses that participate. Just look at the growth of our biggest partners
over the years. From DomainSponsor, to Moniker, to TrafficZ and others, TRAFFIC
has facilitated the growth of these companies. We are the 'King makers' and that
has been the bi-product of what we do and we can do it for many
more.
Now just a few quick reminders.
1. The group fees go up tomorrow (Tuesday)
The 5 pack goes up $1000.
The 10 pack goes up $2000.
2. The $1795
Preferred admission ends on July 31st.So sign up now and save. http://targetedtraffic.com/ny_register.html
3. The hotel rates will be going up on August 20th. Book your
rooms now as we are already 65% booked and the rates will go up by $200/night. http://targetedtraffic.com/ny_hotel.html
Now back to your regularly scheduled summer!
Have a GREAT day!
Rick Schwartz
Update: We can now announce 4 of the auction companies that will be holding live auctions at T.R.A.F.F.I.C.
Moniker.com
Thought Convergence
RickLatona.com
Bido.com
Recent Comments