Again .. who cares! It's not relevant in any way. He probably saw some potential value in it so kept it aside for a year for the original owner. Then after he kept renewing it for himself personally specifically for the same reason he originally saw value in it.
How is that something Rob/Epik should be responsible for? They sent out 7 emails!
There's a problem with that reasoning.
First off, let's consider this "original owner" for a moment. The name had a history involving several previous owners.
The most recent former owner prior to Rob obtaining the domain name is mentioned earlier in this thread. Apparently, he obtained the domain name through a dropcatching registrar associated with SnapNames:
So, let's be clear. When we are talking about the previous owner to Rob as "the original owner", we are talking about the trademark owner:
Having gone through the ringer with some of the dropcatching registrars which used to be formerly associated with Snapnames, it was made obvious to me that they are fairly keen on getting the auction revenue, but not particularly compliant with ICANN rules - or even adept at actually providing control to the person who obtained the dropped domain name.
So, one of the problems with this part of the discussion is that you get to pick one of two scenarios:
1. Rob had a previous relationship as a registration service provider to the trademark owner, who was the registrant of the domain name, and he was holding it for a year, or
2. Rob had no knowledge of the trademark owner.
But you don't get to pick both. He was either a customer of Rob's or he wasn't. Now, sure, the registrant data doesn't scream "this is the trademark owner", but I can tell you that Rob's apparent decision to abandon this lawsuit was a good one. Because claiming not to know the trademark owner while also claiming to have had its CEO as a customer is the kind of thing that can be used as a buzz saw to impair the credibility of a witness.
To me, it looks like the typical cheesy dropcatching registrar scenario which I've dealt with numerous times, and which often require leaning on ICANN Compliance and in-house counsel for Snapnames/Namejet/Etc. simply to get control of a domain name for which I've paid on behalf of a client. For the everyday domain registrant who is unfamiliar with the ins and outs of the domain registration system, it is a nearly impossible task.
So, anyway, the trademark owner had acquired the domain name on a drop, and it appears that the registration lasted one year at a cheesy dropcatching registrar called "dropweek" whose existence was clearly not premised on providing adequate support for retail registrants. The name expired at Dropweek.com in June 2012 (subject to the registry auto-renew grace period, which is why it was "updated" on June 4, 2012 and the expiry set to June 2, 2013 temporarily) and was picked up later in 2012:
So, Ategy, I remain confused about these "7 emails" you are talking about. Did Epik own Dropweek.com? It doesn't look that way to me:
https://www.internic.net/registrars/registrar-1078.html
DropWeek.com, LLC
5335 Gate Parkway
Jacksonville Florida 32256
United States
+1 8886429675
[email protected]
It looks to me like the trademark owner acquired the domain name through Snapnames in 2011 after Oversee dropped it. The domain name then sat at the dropcatch registrar for a year, expired again in 2012, and was picked up by Rob.
So where is this entire narrative of "The name belonged to an Epik customer and expired there" coming from?
That simply does not appear to be true.