The Long, Frustrating, Sad Tale of MartinStreek.com
Published by Toronto Mike on July 9, 2010 @ 13:27 in Martin Streek Remembered ~ A Tribute to Martin Streek
In March, I wrote martinstreek.com: Help Me Get It Back Online. I saw martinstreek.com was offline and I wanted a tribute there by the one year anniversary of his death.
Jo Fergus left a comment explaining the unfortunate situation.
This doesn't look good...
Based on the registration dates of the domain name, it seems that martinstreek.com likely expired, and was re-registered less than a month ago!
What this indicates is that (once again) some anonymous, lazy, parasitic domain "squatter" is sitting on this known name/brand to generate revenue for themselves with every click on their illegitimate site. The only way to stop them would be through a trademark dispute via WIPO.org
martinstreek.com
Creation date:
27 Feb 2010 13:24:00
Expiration date:
26 Feb 2011 11:19:00
Pete from coreFusion Inc., another reader of this blog, knew people at the registrar, and wrote me this update.
The domain expired. The way they work, I'm sure you know is the domain account holder is notified, if it was Martin, these went nowhere. After it expired, eNom registered it, they are basically squatting on it. I have sent correspondence to them to the effect that I would like to acquire it. We'll see what happens there.
The person squatting on martinstreek.com and essentially holding it ransom used a broker, and here's the email we got from the broker when we inquired about the domain name.
Hello,
The seller is asking $3000 USD for martinstreek.com
Let me know how you’d like to move forward.
Best Regards,
Jacob
jacob@acquirethisname.com
Aquirethisname.com
Around this time, I was contacted by the web guy for Ubiquitous Synergy Seeker, an awesome Parkdale group that was very close to Martin and sincerely appreciated his support. He had read my plea and offered to help us get martinstreek.com back. He noted that Aquirethisname.com's work on behalf of the seller was against the cybersquatting act and the ICANN law, so we contacted the WIPO who told us to file an official dispute. The cost for a hearing would be $3000, exactly what the cybersquatter was asking for.
We contacted the seller again to let them know they were violating those laws and we were told us to send in proof of trademark. Unfotunately, Martin never trademarked the name "Martin Streek", so the only foundation we would have to go on is intellectual property law. But that would require the WIPO and the aforementioned $3000 filing. Clearly WIPO is designed for corporations and money-rich megastars who have millions to throw around, and not the common person. He contacted several lawyers on the WIPO board who refused to let us know if it was a valid claim. We decided not to go through WIPO, determining that could be pointless and a waste of money.
The entire ordeal was quite frustrating, and in the end we accomplished little. But we tried. Man, did we try.
In addition to all the help I got from Pete and USS for letting us use their lawyer, I want to thank Pat Leyland for his help.
A few months of back and forth with the registrar/seller and we're at an impasse due to the unique circumstances of the situation. Overall, it's just a highly unethical, illegal situation that can't be fought without what seems like endless resources. martinstreek.com remains offline, without a tribute to Martin, and for that, I'm truly sorry.
 Entry Permalink |
 17 comments |
Tweet |
TCN
July 9, 2010 / 13:41
Frustrating indeed. Awful stuff. Kudos to you, Mike, and the others for persevering...