UDRP Temco.com UDRP: $12,540 dropcatch and GoDaddy broker emails (1.Viewing)

Crucially, GoDaddy/Afternic broker emails showed the seller was “willing to wait for the right end user” and explicitly named temcoindustrial.com, temcologistics.com and temcoparts.com as ideal buyers, while quoting high prices; initially up to $150,000 dollars, later $48,500 dollars, with a current GoDaddy minimum offer around $36,375 dollars.

Click to expand...

Complainant states that its representative decided to contact the new owner of the Domain Name through GoDaddy’s Afternic domain name brokers, seeking to purchase the Domain Name in his personal capacity and without disclosing his ties to Complainant, thereby hoping this would allow the Domain Name to be purchased at a reasonable price, and then subsequently transferring it to Complainant. Complainant provides evidence that on February 22, 2023, a GoDaddy broker indicated the Domain Name’s owner was “looking for $150,000 USD for TEMCO.COM.” Complainant’s representative states he offered to buy the Domain Name for approximately USD 5,000 and subsequently continued to contact GoDaddy’s brokers submitting multiple offers. According to Complainant, the responses from the GoDaddy brokers indicated a price for the Domain Name as high as USD 180,000, and as time went on, the price was lowered to approximately USD 50,000, while the brokers claimed five letter domain names are hard to get and cost more. Complainant provides evidence that during this ongoing effort, Complainant’s representative contacted a GoDaddy broker on November 4, 2024. Complainant states its representative offered USD 1,000 for the Domain Name, and the broker replied on that same date with a counteroffer of USD 48,500,

Click to expand...

Mira Holdings argued that there are many companies with the name Temco and that it wasn’t targeting the Complainant exclusively.

In communications with a GoDaddy broker, it said that it was willing to hold out for one of the many companies with this name to purchase it. One of the examples it provided was the Complainant, but it didn’t realize that the Complainant was the company making the offer.

The three-person panel distinguished between targeting trademark holders in general vs. targeting a specific trademark holder. Because the Complainant was one of the companies Mira believed might want the domain, the panel found it targeted.

Click to expand...