1

Topic: Threats don’t play well in cybersquatting disputes

https://i.postimg.cc/prSbQtdm/swot-analysis-threats-definition-examples.jpg


These two domain owners tried to play hardball and got nothing.


“In August 2020, the Respondent contacted the Complainant via LinkedIn, stating in relevant part as follows:

“I own domain name and I am reaching out to few companies to explore a possible sale of the domain name.

When I setup the email address for magna.co to contact potential end users, I started receiving business emails concerning your company (check attachment).

Would you be interested in owning this domain name to protect your business information and brand?”

The Complainant rejected this initial offer to buy the disputed domain name. The Respondent then sent another LinkedIn message as follows:

“Thank you for your reply. I thought its better that your company owns this domain name. In the last three weeks I got 350+ emails concerning your company.

Imagine your competitors American Axle & Manufacturing, Lear Corporation, Visteon, Faurecia, Linamar, Aptiv or Gentex owning the domain name and what information they can extract from the emails to gain advantage on your company. It can be a minor leak with serious consequences.

Once the domain is sold to an end user its very difficult and expensive to own. If you are reconsidering this matter, Visit magna.co and submit your offer.”


Read the article:
https://domaininvesting.com/catch-all-e … sing-udrp/

2

Re: Threats don’t play well in cybersquatting disputes

Yeah, that's a bad look on domainers. Catch-all emails are very much a gray area but to use them as leverage in a negotiation is just bonkers.

And this line kills me as well...

If you are reconsidering this matter, Visit magna.co and submit your offer.

If you're outbounding, you should at least mention a price. In what other industry would you contact someone out of the blue and ask them to make an offer? If you're brave enough to outbound, be brave enough to state a BIN

3

Re: Threats don’t play well in cybersquatting disputes

I actually knew Frank Stronach the founder of the company. Back in my car days when I ran a Mercedes-Benz franchise he was a client and I got to know his family. He was actually quite close with my dad who was also a salesman for Mercedes-Benz and the whole family were multiple repeat clients.

Magna -  a great Canadian success story.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Stronach

4

Re: Threats don’t play well in cybersquatting disputes

Spex wrote:

... but to use them as leverage in a negotiation is just bonkers.

100% agree.  I don't see the catch-all on DNS and/or email as being the problem - there are 100% legit reasons to do that.  However, it is what he was doing with the information that was wrong.  You can't help what you receive that you didn't specifically ask for.  It's what do you do with that information that is the problem.  If someone accidentally emails you a credit card or check or some sort of valuable information, if you return it, shred it, delete it, or whatever, no big deal.  If you start buying [crap] on amazon - that's where the problem starts, or in this case, start using thinly veiled threats.  Had the guy offered as a courtesy to either bounce or redirect specific email accounts for a nominal & reasonable fee per account, even then he may have been safe.  It was the the insinuation that he was willing to sell corporate secrets to the highest bidder that was truly the issue.  Got what he deserved.

Spex wrote:

If you're outbounding, you should at least mention a price. In what other industry would you contact someone out of the blue and ask them to make an offer? If you're brave enough to outbound, be brave enough to state a BIN

100% agree again - outbounding with no BIN and just asking for offers is nothing more than spam.