UDRP LA Rams vs MapleDots | Dispute Denied (19.Viewing)

DomainRecap · Thursday at 6:41 PM

You can also have a nightmare like this, with owner Arthur Blank (the joker who was chorus line dancing on the sideline with his team up 28-3 in the SB against the Patriots) refusing to pay the asking price, then a luxury brand decided to buy it in 2024:

Falcons | Buy & Sell designer second-hand fashion

And don't get me going with Jerry Jones and his "I can only offer you $250 for Cowboys.com and not a penny more" negotiation strategy.

Liam · Thursday at 8:17 PM

https://twitter.com/x/status/1969446662675325392

They have balls thinking they have more rights to it than everyone else

MapleDots · Thursday at 8:53 PM

https://twitter.com/x/status/1999293658772992160

MapleDots · Friday at 7:51 AM

Waking up to an inbox full of emails

Anyone know who this is?

escrowdomainer@gmail.com

MacMan · Friday at 9:27 AM

Rams-Global.com was mentioned in the UDRP as having made a 2 million dollar offer.

Imagine using Rams-Global.com with RamsGlobal.com sitting in China?

Bruce · Friday at 9:56 AM

MacMan said:
Rams-Global.com was mentioned in the UDRP as having made a 2 million dollar offer.

Imagine using Rams-Global.com with RamsGlobal.com sitting in China?

Imagine sitting on therams.com instead of larams.com or rams.com

MacMan · Friday at 10:02 AM

Bruce said:
Imagine sitting on therams.com instead of larams.com or rams.com

they both look like shit in the address bar

Spex · Friday at 10:16 AM

Congrats Frank! Hope they best buyer comes to their senses and acquires this domain from you legitimately

DomainRecap · Friday at 10:35 AM

1) Kirk Cousins led a fantastic 4th quarter comeback (they were down 28-14 with 9 minutes left) as the Falcons beat the Bucs 29-28 on a last-second field goal, thus making that 1st round pick the Falcons traded to the Rams last year even worse.

Eric · Friday at 11:33 AM

Congratulations

@MapleDots on your win

https://twitter.com/x/status/1999456870273347905

Eric · Friday at 11:34 AM

#UDRP #rams.com denied. The Complainant is one of the teams in the National Football League (NFL), the main professional football league in the United States. The Complaint includes evidence that the Complainant owns a number of registered trademarks in the United States for RAMS, LOS ANGELES RAMS, or LA RAMS, with the earliest registration dating from October 16, 1973. The Respondent acquired the disputed domain name from a third party in or about November 23, 2022 for payment of the sum of CAD 50,000.

On January 25, 2025, the Respondent was approached by a Mr Recai Baltaci from Medyae Digital Agency with an offer on behalf of an undisclosed client to “buy” the disputed domain name for USD 2 million. Given the Respondent had received what was a genuine offer for the disputed domain name in the sum of USD 2 million, the Respondent’s conduct in seeking to generate a bidding war over the rights to the disputed domain name of the short, dictionary word with multiple possible uses at issue here cannot be characterised as use in bad faith under the Policy @ https://wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/pdf/2025/d2025-3761.pdf

The second paragraph is killer

Helmuts · Friday at 1:44 PM

Congratulations gentelmen!!!!

rlm · Friday at 5:03 PM

Eric said:
The second paragraph is killer

Yes, that is very interesting. Is this precedent setting? So if you receive a good offer on a true generic dictionary word domain, you can now contact a trademark holder without it being bad faith? Would be interesting to hear

@Zak 's thoughts on this.

GlobeTech · Friday at 8:30 PM

domains said:
What is the ballpark cost to defend a UDRP like this these days? I had to defend a .ca maybe 7 years ago through the CIRA system, and the legal cost was a flat $5000 CAD.

Depends on who you hire but 5-7 thousand is the norm and if I was mapledots I'd surely add a markup on top of that for time and effort should they come calling to buy the domain.

Hatecrime · Friday at 9:53 PM

All this over $3.5M. They probably spend more on IcyHot in each season.

Hatecrime · Friday at 9:54 PM

Domains101 · Saturday at 7:51 AM

rlm said:
Yes, that is very interesting. Is this precedent setting? So if you receive a good offer on a true generic dictionary word domain, you can now contact a trademark holder without it being bad faith? Would be interesting to hear [ATTACH type="full" alt="Zak"]9718[/ATTACH] @Zak 's thoughts on this.

I think Berryhill's pointing that out too

https://twitter.com/x/status/1999140824999714956

MapleDots · Saturday at 11:38 AM

You know, the part of a disputes that gets my goat is anyone can technically file with absolutely no consequence thereof.

So each time some wanna steal nimrod tries to take a domain it sets the domainer back between 5-8 grand unless you defend yourself. Even then unless you want to leave it up to one panelist you have to pay for additional panelists.

The whole system needs a reboot where the complainant should be forced to pay all legal costs, and a fee, to compensate the domain owner should their complaint be denied. A 10k deposit to file does not seem unreasonable in my opinion and it would assure a lot of these frivolous filings would not happen.

Mind you big corporations don't care about that but at least the defendant would be compensated.

DomainRecap · Sunday at 11:31 AM

MapleDots said:
The whole system needs a reboot where the complainant should be forced to pay all legal costs, and a fee, to compensate the domain owner should their complaint be denied. A 10k deposit to file does not seem unreasonable in my opinion and it would assure a lot of these frivolous filings would not happen.

Sure, but it's never going to happen, as the system is entirely designed to "get offending domains back in the hands of the rightful TM holder", so no way they're going to be punishing their actual paying customers. Also, panelists can't build their client lists by punishing those same companies.

Due to this, it's far from an equal system and more resembles a one-way street, where corporations hold all the cards and the domain owner always loses, whether it's a) the domain being taken away or b) paying legal fees.

MapleDots · 2025-12-15T12:07:06-0500

It appears the story is making an impact with the daily visitor count up quite substantially.

UDRP LA Rams vs MapleDots | Dispute Denied (19.Viewing)

Member

Member

MapleDots.ca

MapleDots.ca

escrowdomainer@gmail.com​

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

DNForum.com

Bonfire.ca

Member

Member

Member

Member

MapleDots.ca

Member

MapleDots.ca

Sponsors who contribute to keep dn.ca free for everyone.

Sponsors who contribute to keep dn.ca free.

Updated Premium Listings

Members who recently read this topic: 46

escrowdomainer@gmail.com