Is Fairwinds Partners guilty of spamming with an unsolicited email to me? PART 2

Morning folks!!



Where do I start? Let's
start with that I know a minimum of 3 people personally that have received this
form letter or what most folks consider a spam letter from Fairwinds Partrners.




The spam itself was
posted on the comments area of the previous post so no need to repeat. However
let's start with the a couple of quotes in the return email I sent them:



'So let me recap.
You THINK you are in the business of selling high end domains however you have
never actually sold one. Have you?? I think you misrepresent your abilities.
You call domainers cybersquatters and then send me that spam. That takes
BALLS!!!'



'So good job at
making your company look like a bunch of hypocrites. You trash domainers and
then want to broker sales by spamming them? That makes you ALL look like
FOOLS.'



To which I got a
response which included the following.



'While I am not
involved in CADNA whatsoever, I have read the materials closely enough to know
that CADNA also knows the difference between the two terms.  You may not
have read the CADNA Web site yourself so I will draw your attention to the
following text that appears at the top of the page'
        “Cybersquatting is defined by
CADNA as the bad-faith registration of a domain name that includes or is confusingly
similar to someone else’s trademark.
      
        CADNA is made up of many leading
edge adopters and generators of new Internet best practices, and as such this
organization knows the value of direct navigation practices and the importance
of direct search to making the Internet more navigable and rewarding to
worldwide web users.
      
        Many of the legal practices of
Domainers that deliver relevant content to direct navigators are not to be
discouraged, but celebrated. And as such, the object of CADNA is
cybersquatting, not domaining.”




ok, now
let's include some other points of fact about these folks who are heavily
involved in coordinating CADNA. I see them as disingenuous.



1. Josh Bourne
is still not telling the truth about the connection between DN tasting and phishing even after the
Anti-Phishing Working Group refuted it with a September report that found that
there was no relationship between domain tasting and phishing scams. Just to be
clear, I'm adamantly against tasting and am proud that the ICA adopted a Code
of Conduct
that calls for an end to abusive tasting and all domain kiting and
has called on ICANN and VeriSign to shut it down with new fees, but this is
just illustrative of how CADNA ignores the facts and throws out unsubstantiated
and disproven charges.



2. CADNA is a cybersquatter by
their own definition that was cited to me above   (CADNA.com
was registered by CADNA Automotive of Memphis, TN, which
subsequently regsiered CADNA as a trademark, long before Fairwinds set up CADNA
and registered the .Org). I have an entire blog post about this here. True,
the CADNA definition printed above calls for bad faith as an element - but
CADNA members have attacked the same bad faith reference in the ICA Code of
Conduct.



3. Sarah Deutsch, a counsel for founding
CADNA member Verizon, picked apart the new ICA code of conduct in a
recent debate with ICA counsel Philip Corwin at the INTA (International
Trademark Association) leadership meeting -- and had the temerity to
say that when Verizon ISP run ads against TM typos under their new Advanced Web
Search service that's customer service, not infringement, at the same time
she's calling for higher statutory damages and criminal law penalties for
domain registrants and questioning whether parked generic pages provide
anything worthwhile to consumers. I think that is outrageous.




4. Now this one should
make you all chuckle. Go to the Fairwinds Partners home page. Scroll to the bottom.
There is a quote there that came directly from Steve Forbes. However that quote was
made by Mr. Forbes specifically for T.R.A.F.F.I.C. and released by us for   in a press release before our October show where he
was our keynote speaker.



'Internet traffic
and domains are the prime real estate of the 21st century,' comments
Forbes. 'This market has matured, and individuals, brands, investors and
organizations who do not grasp their importance or value are missing out on
numerous levels.'



http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/070920/clth050.html?.v=101



Nothing wrong, but Chutzpah is the only
word that really comes to mind. But don't worry, I am full of adjectives to
describe these hypocrits. I may have to blog just on that. This is going to
begin the unraveling of this garbage. I am not sure what their true agenda is
as it is confusing to me. When I wrote the organization in the summer shortly
after they came into being, my email was never answered to this day. I blogged
about it at the time. So what is really going on here?




Some may think this is
the end. Quite the contrary. This is the beginning. The only question is it a
new beginning of cooperation and working together for what we have in common or
will we have to slay this dragon as they continue to paint us all as
'Cybersquatters' every chance they get? Unfortunately we may already
have the answer and the evidence against them is mounting. The only question is
when do the companies supporting CADNA see the true picture? It is my opinion
that CADNA has the ability to tarnish the very companies and brands that they
represent. Wonder what their take on spammers is?



My advice to both these
companies is get your act together, contact the ICA and begin a constructive
dialogue. Short of that, expect blog posts like these from every legitimate
domain investor out there. It will eventually make its way to the media and
there is going to be a lot of folks with egg on their face. I can see it now.
Cybersquatters vs Spammers. the media would have a field day with that
match up. Let the games begin. However we will win as we define the difference
between Cybersquatting and Domain investing. On the other hand....a spammer is
a spammer is a spammer and EVERYONE hates spammers.



Have a GREAT day!
Rick Schwartz





7 thoughts on “Is Fairwinds Partners guilty of spamming with an unsolicited email to me? PART 2

  1. owen frager

    They are all salesmen Rick, just like you and me.
    Do you think Verizon ever has been honest in letting its customers know what the true charges are or by upgrading someone for two years as the fine print of taking a service call is any more morally sound business practice,
    Only CNDA is more like the Senators that vote against gay rights then have sex with male prostitutes in bathrooms.
    Like the Senators, because they come from register.com that abuse the trust people put in them by giving them privilege and access to information others can leverage for their competitive advantage.
    Hope you nail the bastards. I hate hypocrisy,

    Reply
  2. Andy

    Calm down Rick…calm down…breathe in…breathe out…you gonna have a heart attack…just calm down…it’s all good!!!

    Reply
  3. A. Non

    This is a funny coincidence?
    http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/6420ap_wa_microsoft_domain_fraud.html
    Phil at Fairwinds was the microsoft domain account manager (sales person) during this entire time that this fraud occurred. He was their salesperson at register.com and NO DOUBT was enriched by collecting commissions off of this!
    This could get interesting!!
    Hope you spam filter doesn’t block this comment but i prefer to post comments like this anonymously.

    Reply
  4. Domainer Joe

    Check out this link of a recent interview with Josh Bourne.
    http://tcattorney.typepad.com/domainnamedispute/2007/12/the-traverse-le.html
    “. You know, outside of this country, even in Canada, there really aren’t any anti-cybersquatting laws. Some of the more cleaver cyber criminals who do practice cybersquatting or at least dabble in it to enable other things that they’re doing that are harmful on the internet, have varies quickly offshore to other jurisdictions where they can find safe harbor.”
    “tion about what to look out for, they could help affect change by changing their own habits. You know, what they are likely or unlikely to fall for in terms of phishing or click schemes or other things that could attract their attention that they could help enable by falling into those kind of traps. The U.S. government; certainly ICANN could affect change through broader education platforms. The other groups that can affect change are small business owners. We get letters constantly from small business owners who say things like, you know, we’re a small owner and somebody grabbed our name and the remedies available such as UDRP are too expensive for us and this other guy is getting all our traffic and they’re confusing our customers, you know, what can I do about that?”

    Reply
  5. Johnny B. Good

    Hey Rick,
    I received this spam email too and still have it in my inbox.
    So that makes four you can count!
    Johnny B. Good

    Reply
  6. Kate

    Just to comment on point #2: CADNA is using an acronym in good faith as far as I can see (no risk of confusion with the .com as they are in different, unrelated industries).
    Response by RS:
    That may be 100% right. However that never stopped WIPO or UDRP from taking away the domain. There has never been a rhyme or reason or prescedent set when it come to domain disputes. They run all over the place and THAT is the point.

    Reply
  7. Enrico Schaefer

    RS: We handle a large number of UDRP proceedings from both sides. You are absolutely correct to note that there is some variability in the results before NAF and WIPO. However, the variability is not as great as you suggest. CADNA is not even close to the line under either trademark or UDRP precedent. There is clear legitimate use and no real argument on bad faith. Plus, acronyms are tough to protect under UDRP and trademark law because they are by nature weak marks with lots of potential non-infringing use.
    Plus, there is no argument in reviewing http://www.cadna.com and http://www.cadna.org of consumer confusion.
    Whatever someone might think of CADNA, cybersquatting is not an argument which would stick. UDRP would not even be an option for the registrant of cadna.com.

    Reply

Leave a Reply