Few of my recent past domain sales

Hi everyone,

It’s been a great time spending here in Malaysia. So far so good. It’s not easy to relocate in any part of the world straight away with family of small kids and that too solely relying on domain investing. Surely fellow domain investors understands more than anyone out there.

Today I’ll share some of my recent past domain sales happened before and after relocating to Malaysia except these sales which happened just after coming to Malaysia.

Flome.com – Received direct inquiry via Uniregistry lander and after quoting $2,888 for which initially got $2,250 offer. After giving the best and final offer of $2,500, buyer immediately accepted and made payment via Uniregistry checkout which has been working very smooth for me. As soon as the funds are secured by Uniregistry, they transfer the domain swiftly and credits your account and funds are released per your preferred payment method.

TotalHomeComfort.com – Acquired this domain last year from GoDaddy closeouts. Received opening offer of $1,250 for which I quoted $2,988. To add one thing here, all quoted prices are already set at Sedo, Afternic and their partner registrars so anyone can buy directly from there as well. And the same price is quoted to all potential buyers who inquire directly.

After the usual silence from buyers, got $1,750 as last and final offer. We quoted $2,600 as final price with no more negotiation space left. The buyer came with $2,000 by saying the budget doesn’t allow to move above any more. After around 15 days, out of the blue, the buyer came back and accepted the offer. Once again, we used Uniregistry checkout to complete the transfer and payment procedure.

ChicagoSurgical.com – There have been rare instances where we acquired domain names in bulk deal and this was one of them. Acquired for low 3 figures couple of years back and sold via Afternic BIN for $1,988.

GymMaster.com – Love to have such 2 word brandable domains in portfolio. This took bit too long to close the deal. Got $13,500 opening offer via Afternic broker. The listed price was $19,888 BIN. After going back and forth several times with the broker, we finally closed the deal for $15,000.

HammerApp.com – Sold via Afternic BIN for $1,588.

RegulatoryRisk.com – Sold via Sedo BIN for $1,988. Held this domain for more than 5 years.

CheeseMongers.com – Acquired this domain more than 6 years back. Received direct inquiry via Uniregistry lander and $3,988 was quoted for which initially $3,000 was made. This wasn’t bad offer at all considering the number of years the domain was held and some 3 figs was invested as well. After giving the best price we would accept was $3,750, the buyer immediately accepted. Once again we used Uniregistry checkout which worked very smoothly.

4CEE.com – Creativity and brand-ability is involved in this domain. Acquired this domain several years back and was having BIN of $2,588. Sold at BIN price via Afternic.

GlowupBeauty.com – This was an interesting domain sale. Acquired the domain late August this year for low 3 figures. Put up the domain for $1,988 BIN and was sold via Afternic. With 60 days transfer lock period, domain remained with me for a month period and was later transferred to Afternic.

Kalpavruksha.com – Domain was acquired earlier this year via GoDaddy Auctions for 2 figures and some time back sold for $1,988 BIN via Afternic. During the entire period of holding the domain, got several inquiries via Uniregistry broker and direct lead. However, nothing worked as buyer got stuck at $1,200 and $1,500. I remained firm at $1,988 with no interest to negotiate.

Online-Auto.com – I’m not fond of buying hyphenated domains. However, paying $59 isn’t that bad either for such a domain. Acquired it last year and sold via Afternic BIN for $1,988.

SimplyHis.com – Another domain acquired for $59 last year. And also sold via Afternic BIN for $1,988.

Cloud22.com – This domain was acquired around mid this year for 3 figures. Received direct inquiry and quoted $5,888. The buyer was very nice gentleman to deal with and a good negotiator as well. Buyer initially offered $4,000. We quoted $5,500. After several exchanges of emails, the buyer raised his offer to $4,500. At the end, we both agreed to finalize the deal at $5,000 and sealed the deal via Sedo escrow where the buyer paid the Sedo escrow fee as well.

Mmmore.com – Another domain acquired for $59 and later sold via Afternic BIN for $1,988.

It’s obvious that BIN sales are working the best and the best platform for selling BIN domains is Afternic. Since I’ve been sharing my domain sales and acquisitions, at the same time I would like to share that now the portfolio consists of 3,300 domains. The sale ratio is 2-2.5% per year and targeting towards 3% in 2020.

Also I would like to add that one of the above domain sale was in partnership with my good friend and well known domain name and domain research specialist Jamie Zoch who’s the founder of DotWeekly.com as well.

Although the year is going to end next month, I can easily say that this is one of the best year both in terms of domain sales and acquisitions. I’ll make sure to publish some domains acquisition post later this month or the next month for sure which will have the best of the best domains added to my portfolio this year.

Feel free to give your feedback. Also if you would like to share your recent sales, please do so.

What websites/tools I use on regular basis for domain investing

Hello and Assalamo Alaikum,

Many domain investors have asked me on several occasions that what tools and websites I make use of which I consider very helpful and must be utilized by fellow domain investors.

There are actually many successful investors using different tactics and every one of them is doing well. Every one has their own way of operating the business and how they research and utilize those opportunities at their hands.

For myself, there are some essential tools and websites I use it on frequent basis and would like to share with fellow domain investors. Couple of things to note before I share it. First, this is not a paid post so I’m not trying to promote any of the tools/websites I’m going to share. It’s just what I personally use and would like to share with everyone to check and do their own due diligence. Lastly, it’s not necessary that any tool or website which is helpful for me can be helpful for others as well. So it all depends on how you utilize it.

I’ve written about Domain Name Analyzer Pro software in past which I still use it. There might be some changes with the versions and style which I’m not aware so you check out. However, I’m using Pro version 4 which is fantastic. This is one thing in domaining I use it on DAILY basis. I’ve shared about this important tool on my blog, NamePros and elsewhere as well and many have found it very helpful. It can be difficult to use at first, but after playing with that for a day or so, you’ll adjust pretty quickly.

There is an alternative of the above software as well which is FoxWHOIS. If you’re having any difficulties/issues, then try out FoxWHOIS which works in similar fashion. Better you can compare both these and get the one which fits for you well.

There is another thing which I use it on daily basis similar to Domain Name Analyzer Pro and that’s DotDB. Of course, there are many other sites which I use it on daily basis and are important like NamePros, Domaining.com, ExpiredDomains.net but here I’m trying to share what’s not that common among domain investors and especially newbies.

DotDB is one great tool which I recommend using it for your additional research in terms of buying, pricing and selling your domains. I’m using the Expert plan so I’ve many additional features available at hand. Better to try their 7 days free trial for Pro plan and thoroughly check it out. You may also check their different plans and what they offer in each of them here.

There is an alternative in the shape of DOFO which is another fantastic service offered by Macit Tuna and his team. I’ve published an extensive post in past about DOFO which you may want to check out for further information.

One more tool I use is Whoxy which is now more valuable to me after the crappy GDPR regulation. I use Whoxy mainly for checking regular WHOIS and Reverse WHOIS. With recent GDPR implementation, the WHOIS is hidden at many registrars but using Whoxy gives the advantage of old record of WHOIS which at least give some hope of contacting the current owner if not the old owner.

Also as mentioned above, I frequently use NamePros, Domaining.com, ExpiredDomains.net for which I don’t need to go into further detail as those are well known among us.

Feel free to give your feedback as well as share what do you use on daily or frequent basis in your domain investing business.

Five Figure Domain Sales right after relocating to Malaysia!

Hello and Assalamo Alaikum,

It’s been just couple of weeks coming to Malaysia and right after relocating, I sold couple of domains and that too within 24 hours. It was really surprising and very satisfying to have 2 domain sales and that too of five figures! Having couple of five figures that quickly is a personal record. Credit to the hard working brokers and Afternic team.

Both of them happened via Afternic.

First sale was of DarkWallet.com which I originally listed for sale at $29,888 BIN both at Sedo and Afternic. Usually all my pricing is same at every marketplace. The buyer came via Afternic broker and initially offered $20,000. However, after going back and forth, we settled for $25,000 gross.

Next sale was definitely surprising which happened after DarkWallet.com sale where the buyer simply hit the BIN and paid $19,888 for it. The domain was BusinessChecking.com

The total acquisition costs for both domains was around $1,000.

Looks like the start of this new journey of moving to Malaysia has started fantastically well and hope it continues to keep ticking up only.

Feel free to comment no matter how good or good that is šŸ˜‰

Moved to Malaysia on permanent basis. Anyone out there?

Hello and Assalamo Alaikum,

It’s been really busy last few months but very exciting at the same time as well. Due to hectic schedule, I was unable to post much but I think things are settling down a bit at my end from now on wards.

I’m very happy to share that I’ve moved to Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia on permanent basis this month with my family. I also wanted to tell that I’ll continue working as domain investor as this is my sole business. So as of this month, currently I’ve 3,200 domains in portfolio.

Some might think it’s very risky to move straightaway with family and be doing only domain investing. I know it was tough decision to think of moving with family and doing solely domain investing because of the cost of living is pretty high compare to Pakistan. I tend to agree at some extent but what’s a lively life without taking any risks yeah šŸ˜‰

So here I’m in Malaysia. If any domainer residing in Kuala Lumpur or any part of Malaysia, feel free to get in touch with me and we shall meet soon.

I’ll make sure to publish some of my recent past domain sales in my next post few days later so stay tuned.

Thanks for reading and feel free to comment if you like to.

Third Consecutive UDRP win but this time with RDNH finding!

Hello and Assalamo Alaikum,

Not sure if this is the longest break I’ve taken in publishing posts but there were several reasons behind that but I feel of having more time in near future so that I can concentrate on blogging.

I wanted to thank my readers who contacted me during this break to know if everything is alright at my end. I really appreciate for their concern and glad to know many domainers want me to continue writing it.

So coming back to the main point of this post, first of all I would like to thank Mr. Howard who represented me in successfully defending the domain and that too with RDNH finding which is really a great feeling. Previously he represented me in two other UDRP cases which includesĀ Kitchn.com, andĀ PrintFactory.com. ALL credit goes toĀ Howard NeuĀ for saving another valuable domain.

In June I was hit with UDRP on AguaDulce.com which means “Sweet Water” in Spanish language and is municipality and city name as well in some part of the world.

Below is some part of the excerpt from the decision including RDNH:

It is understood and accepted by both of the Parties that they are based in different jurisdictions. Nevertheless, as the panel noted in Fakir Elektrikli EV Aletleri Diş Ticaret Anonim Şirketi v. Development Services, Telepathy, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2016-0535, ā€œthe fact that a respondent is in a different jurisdiction than a complainant is something that some people can consider to be of greater significance than it actually is, particularly if the complainant has a significant online presenceā€. In the present case, however, while there is evidence before the Panel that the Complainant has a website at ā€œwww.puertoaguadulce.comā€, this has not been evidenced as a significant online presence which may be presumed to have come to the Respondentā€™s attention at or before the point of registration of the disputed domain name. No reason has been put forward as to why the unrelated mark would have stood out from other uses of the phrase ā€œagua dulceā€ on the Internet.

In addition to giving details of its website, the Complainant puts forward a series of media articles relating to the activities of its port. These articles represent, in the Panelā€™s view, reasonably substantial and independent coverage of the Complainantā€™s activities and its use of the AGUADULCE mark. However, such coverage is in the specialist trade and business press only and some of it is presented in the Spanish language alone. At best, this establishes some notoriety of the Complainant within its own field of operations and, in particular, it reinforces the Complainantā€™s submission that it trades and is known as ā€œPuerto Aguadulceā€ rather than as simply ā€œAguadulceā€. It is true that the Complainantā€™s business features an obvious international dimension which might lead to the view that its notoriety extends beyond Colombia, at least within its own industry. However, there is no evidence before the Panel which demonstrates on the balance of probabilities that any such notoriety transcends the Complainantā€™s own field, or that this would have reached Pakistan in general or the Respondent in particular.

The Complainant seeks to bolster its case on the probability of the Respondentā€™s knowledge by reference to a ā€œGoogleā€ search for the term ā€œaguadulceā€, featuring the Complainantā€™s website in prominent position. However, the Respondent reasonably counters with his own ā€œwww.bing.comā€ search which shows a single mention of the Complainantā€™s business portal website some distance down the rankings while, on the contrary, demonstrating a multiplicity of unconnected, mainly geographic, results. The discrepancy appears to result from the localization of the Complainantā€™s search. It is notable for example that its search returns are in Spanish, while the Respondentā€™s search returns are in English. In any event, the Complainantā€™s results are not conclusive of what the Respondent might be expected to have seen by way of a search in his own location.

What both Partiesā€™ searches do demonstrate, taken together, is that a range of alternative meanings and possible uses of the term ā€œaguadulceā€ (or ā€œagua dulceā€) exist, the majority of which do not denote the Complainant or its mark. There is considerable emphasis to be found on these alternative meanings or uses in the Respondentā€™s search and this provides adequate support for his case that he was not aware of the Complainant when he came to register the disputed domain name and that he did so to take advantage of its dictionary meaning. On the whole, the Panel considers that the results of the Partiesā€™ searches could not be considered to be supportive of the Complainantā€™s case on registration and use in bad faith.

The Complainant points to an article on the Respondentā€™s website indicating that the Respondent has knowledge of and invests in ā€œ.coā€ domain names, being the country code for Colombia. The Complainant does not, however, submit that this fact alone could support an inference of the Respondentā€™s knowledge of Colombia itself or, by extension, of the Complainant or its trademark, nor in the circumstances would the Panel necessarily make such inference in the absence of other supporting evidence.

The Complainant also focuses on the Respondentā€™s past history concerning the registration of alleged dictionary word domain names. It cites three cases in which the Respondent was involved, on the basis that the Respondentā€™s bad faith intent, if established in these cases, might taint the Respondentā€™s protestations of good faith in the present proceeding. The Complainant is correct that the sole panelist in one of these cases, namely Gerald Hill v. Abdul Basit Makrani, supra, found against the Respondent. The complainantā€™s mark in Gerald Hill was CARIBBEAN-DIRECT and the domain name concerned was . The Respondent did not reply to the complainantā€™s contentions and it is clear that the panel placed considerable emphasis on the Respondentā€™s failure to engage with the complaint. For example, the panel noted that ā€œthe only such purpose [for the registration of the domain name] suggested in the case file was the Respondentā€™s apparent intention to sell the disputed domain name [ā€¦]ā€. and ā€œ[ā€¦] the Respondent has not come forward to argue that he has any such rights or legitimate interests, in the face of the Complainantā€™s prima facie case against him. Following the majority of panel authority on this issue, referred to above, this would by itself be sufficient for the Complainant to establish that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.ā€

It is notable that the Complainant chose not to address the Panel in any detail on the other two cases which it cites involving the Respondent, namely Kitchn Norge AS v. Abdulbasit Makrani,supra and Aurelon B.V. v. AbdulBasit Makrani, supra. By contrast, the three-member panels in each of these cases reached decisions in the Respondentā€™s favor. These cases concerned the domain names , being intended by the Respondent as a contraction of the word ā€œkitchenā€, and respectively. While the facts are broadly similar to that of the present case, one difference is that the Respondent used both of these domain names to display pay-per-click links associated with the generic meaning of the words concerned. There was also, as here, a general offer of sale of the domain name concerned on each of the respective websites. The panel in each case found that there was no evidence that the Respondentā€™s use of the domain name demonstrated any intention on the Respondentā€™s part to target the complainant concerned and that there was no evidence that the Respondent had ever known of the rights of either of said complainants.

Before leaving this topic, the Panel notes that the Complainant also stated that the Respondent has been the respondent in other unspecified UDRP cases before another provider. The Panel has searched the records of the provider concerned for the Respondentā€™s name in a variety of alternative configurations and has not been able to find any such cases. The Panel also performed a ā€œGoogleā€ search keyed to the same variations of the Respondentā€™s name with results limited to the providerā€™s website. This, too, did not return any relevant cases. The Complainant is clearly in the best position to provide the Panel with full citations of all and any cases upon which it seeks to rely. In the absence of such citations, this particular submission of the Complainant is to be disregarded. Accordingly, in all of the above circumstances, the Panel does not consider that the Respondentā€™s past history provides support to a material extent for the proposition that the Respondent is likely to have known of the Complainantā€™s marks and was targeting these by virtue of the disputed domain name.

The Panel notes in passing that the Complainant refers to the alleged use of the disputed domain name to obtain click-through revenue from the diversion of Internet users. However, the mechanism whereby such alleged click-through revenue is allegedly generated is not further described by the Complainant, nor do the corresponding screenshots produced by either the Complainant or the Respondent show the presence of any apparent pay-per-click or affiliate links.

The Complainant relies upon the case of Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, supra, to demonstrate use of the disputed domain name in bad faith as a consequence of the Respondentā€™s alleged passive holding thereof. The term ā€œpassive holdingā€ as described in Telstra means circumstances of respondent inaction following the registration of a domain name. The panel in that case indicated that such circumstances could amount to bad faith in the meaning of the Policy, subject to a review of all the facts in each specific case. In Telstra itself, factors which the panel identified as demonstrating respondent bad faith were, first, that the complainantā€™s trademark was widely known nationally and internationally, secondly, that the respondent had provided no evidence of any actual or contemplated good faith use of the domain name concerned, thirdly, that the respondent had taken active steps to conceal its true identity, fourthly, that the respondent had actively provided and failed to correct false contact details, and fifthly, that taking into account all of these aspects, it was not possible to conceive of any plausible actual or contemplated active use of the domain name by the respondent which would not be illegitimate, such as by constituting passing off, an infringement of consumer protection legislation or an infringement of the complainantā€™s rights under trademark law.

On the facts of this case, the disputed domain name does not appear to the Panel to be passively held. It is being offered for general sale via the Registrarā€™s website and, rather than remaining passive, the Respondent has shown by its response to the Complainantā€™s inquiry that it replies to communications initiated through such site regarding possible sale of the disputed domain name. This could not be described as inaction, but even if it was, the Panel considers that the Complainant would not be able to fulfil the criteria described in the five factors in the Telstra case, nor any other similar criteria on the facts of this case.

Turning briefly to the Response, the Panel accepts that the term ā€œagua dulceā€ can represent a dictionary phrase in the Spanish language meaning ā€œsweet waterā€ or, in an alternative and potentially more apt translation, ā€œfresh waterā€. As a general rule, anyone can register such words in a domain name without transgressing the Policy and one cannot infer without evidence, which is lacking in this case, that one user of such words is necessarily being targeted. Some dictionary words may be so well-known in connection with a particular business or trademark (for example, DELTA, UNITED or APPLE) that the general rule would be displaced but that is not the case here. Similarly, a very specific combination of dictionary words might lead to an inference of targeting, for example, if the disputed domain name had contained the dictionary word ā€œpuertoā€ along with ā€œaguadulceā€.

However, this is not the case with the Spanish translation of ā€œfresh waterā€ which could be of value to multiple organizations.

The Panel acknowledges that the registration of the disputed domain name appears to correspond to those others in various languages which the Respondent indicates are part of its stock-in-trade. It is not unlikely that the Respondent could have chosen the disputed domain name independently of a trademark in the circumstances of this case. The Panel further accepts the Respondentā€™s contention that a domain name consisting of a dictionary word or phrase in any particular language is likely to have an intrinsic value on the secondary market which would justify an uplift in price, such as that quoted to the Complainant when it expressed an interest in the disputed domain name. There is no evidence before the Panel that such uplift has anything to do with the goodwill inherent in a mark as opposed to some intrinsic value of the disputed domain name itself.

In all of the above circumstances, the Panel finds that the Complainant has not established the third element under the Policy and the Complaint fails.

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

In the present case, the majority of the Panel (Andrew Lothian and Nick Gardner) is of the opinion that the circumstances in which the Complaint was brought should lead to a finding of RDNH. The majority detects a lack of candor in the Complainantā€™s case which is inconsistent with its certification of completeness and accuracy in accordance with the Rules.

The majority of the Panel are of the opinion that the Complainant was doubly on notice regarding the importance of the dictionary phrase here due to the Complainantā€™s citation of past cases involving the Respondent, in which the Respondentā€™s registration of such words and phrases as domain names, and the corresponding uplift in value, is fully canvassed. The manner of such citation in the Complaint itself did not represent a fair presentation of the Respondentā€™s past history. The Complainant chose to highlight quotations from the no-response case Gerald Hill v. Abdul Basit Makrani, supra, in which a finding of registration and use in bad faith was made against the Respondent, and then merely to list two further cases in which he was involved. As outlined above, both of the latter two cases featured the decision of a three-member panel, a comprehensive response and a finding in the Respondentā€™s favor. The Complainant made no exposition of these cases at all. The Panel unanimously considers that the way in which the previous cases were quoted was at best careless and at worst misleading, given that the juxtaposition of the three cases in the manner put forth in the Complaint inevitably confers the wrongful impression that they were all decided on a similar basis to Gerald Hill. It was left to the Respondent to set the record straight in this regard.

As outlined above, the Complainantā€™s case asserted that the Respondent has also been party to cases before another provider of UDRP decisions. Despite making reliance on such unspecified cases, the Complainant failed to provide any details, including appropriate case numbers, which would have allowed the Panel to review and assess their relevance to the matter in hand. The Panel as a whole were unable to find any cases involving the Respondent before such provider. That is not to say that the Complaint is necessarily incorrect as far as this submission is concerned, but rather that the Panel is unimpressed by the making of an unsupported submission of this nature, particularly in light of the criticisms above regarding the three previous cases before the Center which were accurately cited in the Complaint. In the Panelā€™s opinion, this is indicative of a lack of care and/or of candor in the presentation of the Complainantā€™s case which cannot be overlooked in the assessment of RDNH.

Taking all of the above aspects together, while acknowledging the minority position on this topic as outlined above, the majority of 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.

Decision

For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied.

The law firm (Brigard Castro) which according to their website says “a firm that is fully committed to its clients” who represented the complainant are bunch of morons and Reverse Domain Name Hijackers who not only mislead the panelists by falsely mentioning that I was involved in other cases whereas they failed to provide any such reference but they also concealed the entire proceedings and the final outcome of my last two UDRP decisions which went completely in my favor. Looks like their motto “a firm that is fully committed to its clients” means they’re fully committed to harm goodwill of their clients. They also asserted that I tried to instigate people on how to profit from .CO domains

It’s really satisfying to see the decision with complainant getting Reverse Domain Name Hijacking label. So everyone please remember that the Brigard Castro and their client are Reverse Domain Name Hijackers.

Once again I thankĀ Mr. Howard NeuĀ for representing and defending the domain successfully plus getting RDNH finding as well.

I wanted to convey a message to all people around the world, I will try my best to defend my properties and wonā€™t let them go easily. Any one planning to file complaint against any of my domain in future, just remember that it’s not really easy to snatch any of my domain. Better to buy the domain in a proper manner through proper channel, else get ready for the hard consequences.

Any feedback is welcome.