UDRP panelists consider asking prices in decisions.
In a highly publicized domain dispute for Hayward.com, a UDRP panelist decided he was an expert at domain valuation and that the price the domain owner wanted for the domain was too high for a city .com., indicating that he must have been targeting the complainant.
Now we have another case where a panelist uses the respondent’s asking price in considering the case. Thankfully, the panelist still denied the transfer.
In Manufacturas Muñoz S.A. Colombia v. Choi Sungyeon, the complainant asked the panel to give it the domain name Muma.com. The respondent had acquired the domain name well before the complainant started using the Muma trademark. It was also only registered in Colombia instead of the respondent’s country of Korea.
Needless to say, these dates made it impossible for the complainant to win the case unless they got lucky with a rogue panelist. Indeed, the panelist in this case found that the domain wasn’t registered in bad faith and denied Manufacturas Muñoz S.A. Colombia’s claim.
But a couple lines in the decision are disconcerting:
While the Panel finds the amount at which Respondent is offering to sell the Disputed Domain Name somewhat suspicious and disconcerting…
And while this Panel finds Respondent’s asking price for the Disputed Domain Name to be somewhat high, there is no evidence to suggest that Respondent did not pay the same amount itself in originally acquiring the Disputed Domain Name.
Am I the only one who has an issue with panelists trying to determine what a reasonable price is for a domain name?
George Kirikos says
No, you’re not. A legitimate owner of a domain or any other asset can ask for any price — that’s called capitalism. In capitalism, the means of production are privately owned, and prices are set through the *market*, not by government regulation or the opinions of a panelist.
Panelists that suggest that a price is “suspicious” or “disconcerting” should hop on a plane to Cuba where they’d find happiness. Alternatively, they can build a time machine and visit Russia or China 30 years ago.
Tim says
That’s just crazy speculation about intentions……definitely out of line IMHO.
John Berryhill says
“I’m I the only one who has an issue with panelists trying to determine what a reasonable price is for a domain name?”
No, you are not, but there are Panelists who are simply of the view that domain names should not have independent economic value.
Societies make these sorts of judgments all of the time. Prostitution is probably the best example where individuals may legitimately differ, for various reasons, on whether commerce in that service is something which ought to be the subject of commerce.
But, while one may legitimately hold the view that “domain names ought not be sold”, then the question of whether a price is “too much” is beside the point, and belies a certain inconsistency of thought.
The classic example is where a gentleman proposes to a lady whether she would sleep with him for a million dollars. Upon her agreement, he says, “How about ten dollars?” and she exclaims in protest, “What sort of a woman do you think I am?”
His answer, of course, is “We’ve already established that. Now, we are simply haggling over the price.”
Gazzip says
No you’re not, these far reaching panalists have lost the plot. Its getting ridiculous.
Rob Sequin says
Shocking.
“asking price for the Disputed Domain Name to be somewhat high”
So, this panelist is a valuation expert?
If he can make this statement for the record then he should also state his reasonable valuation for the record.
THEN we’ll see WIPO step in and tell them to stop making these comments.
friday driveby says
I agree with all of the comments above.
However, we can bitch as much as we want. WIPO, NAF, CZ, and Icann will do what they want anyway and we have zero influence or control.
Ramiro Canales says
Value is in the eye of the beholder.
tim davids says
nice comment JB. If she gets arrested for prostitution should the judge make her give it up for free if she asked an unreasonable amount in the first place 🙂
John Berryhil says
“should the judge make her give it up for free if she asked an unreasonable amount in the first place”
You know, in some places there are laws with respect to marital relations that indeed work that way.
Domainer says
>The classic example is where a gentleman proposes to a lady whether she would sleep with him for a million dollars. Upon her agreement, he says, “How about ten dollars?” and she exclaims in protest, “What sort of a woman do you think I am?”
His answer, of course, is “We’ve already established that. Now, we are simply haggling over the price.”
John you need some fresh material. 🙂
DotCom says
The new design on NAMEJET is garbage. RIOIT&&&