Archive for the ‘Domaining’ Category

From $2,888 and $4,400 quote to $15,888 domain sale

Hi everyone,

It’s been a fantastic year for myself and I would call it one of the best year overall in terms of domaining.

Hope the post title doesn’t confuse any one as I want to clarify this at first. The price of $2,888 was quoted to inquirer A and $4,400 was quoted to inquirer B and finally the buyer who acquired the domain is different from them. Also the timings of all 3 price quotes differ very much from each other.

First, I would like to admit my mistake that I by mistake set the price of $2,888 for Digital-Identity.com after acquiring the domain around 3 years back. So when the first few inquiries came in, I quoted $2,888 without realizing too much of the set price. The domain didn’t got sold for $2,888 as the buyer wasn’t interested at that price.

In 2018, I received inquiry via DomainAgents where the buyer initially offered $3,321 to which I quoted $4,400. Buyer came back with $3,321 again without moving a little so I gave my final offer of $4,000. Eventually the domain wasn’t sold.

I was suppose to do repricing of domains which was long due and did the repricing around some time in 2018 during which I finally set the price of $15,888 for Digital-Identity.com. The new price was quoted to several inquirers including one interested buyer coming via Uniregistry broker with an offer of $5,000 which I happily declined. This inquiry came in mid 2018.

Fast forward to 25th December 2019, I received an email from Afternic saying the domain Digital-Identity.com sold for $15,888 at BIN.

So yes, I openly admit my mistake of setting the price very low in past and it can happen with any one. At least, I realized and changed to what I think was the right price to set for Digital-Identity.com and I’m very happy to sell this domain for what it sold for. Also this is my highest hyphenated domain sale.

Feel free to share your domain sales if you want and/or give your feedback on the above domain sale.

From $3000 offer to a $26000 domain sale

Hello everyone,

As I recently published a post with several of my recent domain sales, today I wanted to share another domain sale with complete detail of how it started and the deal was wrapped up successfully.

The domain I sold is Quaestor.com which was the oldest domain by creation date I owned until it sold. It was initially registered in 1994 but I acquired in 2018 for around $1100 via GoDaddy Auctions.

The inquiry came in via Uniregistry lander and I quoted price of $26,888. The buyer countered with $3000. After exchanging several emails and asking to come close to quoted price, the buyer revised his offer to $6,000.

Again after more communication, I said to present an offer of over $20,000 to get into negotiation.

With no response, I gave my final price of $25,000 with 7 days to accept. The buyer came in August and offered $10,000 but only after the 7 days period was over.

Sticking firm to the final price, the buyer came again in October and presented $15,000 offer to which I declined by informing the price is reverted back to $26,888 which was initially quoted because the offer of $25,000 was valid for 7 days only.

There was once again silence until the buyer came again in November by asking if I’m willing to negotiate as they’ve to decide and move on within a week period.

During this silence period of more than a month, I already upped the price at all marketplaces to $29,888 so I informed the buyer new price at all marketplaces but if he is still willing to buy, I can offer $26,000 to you only which is valid until the end of November.

Buyer immediately accepted and we used Sedo escrow and buyer paid the Sedo commission.

At one stage the domain was offered for $25,000 but ultimately sold for $26,000 to the same buyer. Every time you need to grab the offer at the right time, but you’re not always sure what’s that perfect time. We keep learning from our and others experiences. What best we can do is to keep learning all the time and improving ourselves.

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.

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.