Complaint Review: Robert Anthony Peters of Pakmail - Tucson ARIZONA

I own a company called Top 10 Map Listers. I signed up a Pakmail location for our services back in 2012 or so. I was dealing with a very friendly man named John Peters. Every month I would show him in person where he was showing up on the internet in the rankings as a result of our work for him. I would also provide Google Analytic reports to back up the findings.

After awhile John Peters started complaining about how his business was slow so I reduced his rate from $149 per month to just $99 per month to make the service more affordable and to help him try and get new customers.

Some more time went by and he was still complaining that his business was slow and he wanted to sell the business. I then dropped the price down to just $49 per month and even rented a mailbox from him to further help him out.

Some more time went by and then apparently he passed the business down to his son Robert Anthony Peters. Robert wanted to cancel the service so he could try and do it himself. That was fine. So I thought....

I had my domain name Kenfolwell.com and did not have it on auto-renew. I went to go back and re register it and I find out that it is now owned by Robert Anthony Peters! So I go in there to not only talk to him about that but to get my mail. He told me that I can no longer receive mail there and that he would release my domain name after I gave back all of the money that was earned from my contractual service.

I also found out that he now owns Kennethfolwell.com, Kennethmfolwell.com, Kennethmichaelfolwell.com, and my business domain name of Top10maplisters.com.

This is a serious crime called Cybersquatting. For those of you that don't know about it here is a link and a breif explanation:

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/cyber-squatting-lawyers.html

What Is Cybersquatting? 

Cybersquatting is generally defined as the situation where a person or business entity purchased a domain name solely for the purpose of reselling the domain to the highest bidder. Implicit in the purpose of the purchase is to hold the website for ransom rather than using or developing it. Since 1999, cybersquatting, also referred to as "reverse domain hijacking," has been an illegal activity worldwide.

Bad Faith: Bad faith is generally interpreted to mean the registrant has tried to sell or manipulate the domain so as to make a profit on it. The term is ambiguous in any area of the law, and in cybersquatting law it's no different. Fortunately, the courts have provided some clarity. In this context bad faith is determined by:

• Previously owned trademark or intellectual property rights of both parties in the suit. THIS ONE APPLIES TO THIS CASE
• Extent to which the domain name consists of the legal or common name of an identifying person. THIS ONE APPLIES TO THIS CASE
• Use of the domain name for actual true sales of good and services. Use of a domain for sales and services generally indicates good faith use of the domain name.
• Use of domain name for noncommercial or fair use purpose. If a domain name for commentary and educational purposes may indicate good faith use of a domain name.
• If the domain name registrants intent to divert consumers away from valid mark owner. THIS ONE APPLIES TO THIS CASE
• If the domain name registrant's intent to offer for sale, transfer, or otherwise assign the domain name
• Looking at a individual domain name registrant's acquisition of multiple similar domain names for unfair use

Cybersquatting law is well settled worldwide. Courts tend to have little patience for cybersquatting, and are quick to hand down rulings and penalties to curtail this practice.

ACPA (Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act)

The Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act ("ACPA") applies to any person who "registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name" that is identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive mark, or that is dilutive of a famous mark, and who "has a bad faith intent to profit from that mark."1 The ACPA applies to all domain names regardless of whether they were registered before, on, or after the enactment of the ACPA on November 29, 1999.2

ACPA Remedies Generally

The Lanham Act provides for a number of potential remedies to a successful ACPA plaintiff, including injunctive relief, 3 forfeiture or cancellation of the disputed domain name or transfer of the name to the plaintiff,4 the plaintiff's actual damages, the defendant's profits, costs,5 statutory damages of $1,000 to $100,000 per domain name in lieu of actual damages,6 and attorney's fees in "exceptional cases."7 Courts have the discretion, "according to the circumstances of the case," to increase an award of "actual damages" to a sum not exceeding three times the amount of actual damages found.8 Moreover, if a court finds an award based on the plaintiff's "profits" to be either "inadequate or excessive," it may increase or decrease it to "such sum as the court shall find to be just."9

However, neither Section 1117(a) nor Section 1117(d), which exclusively govern the monetary remedies for ACPA violations, expressly provides for any discretion in increasing statutory damages.10 Despite this, one court trebled its award of $40,000 in ACPA statutory damages ($10,000 each for four domain names) to a total of $120,000.11 But the court did not discuss the authority or rationale for doing so under the ACPA. In fact, the court did not even discuss the trebling issue in the part of its opinion where it initially awarded the $40,000 in statutory damages.12 The only mention of the trebling is in the "Conclusion" where the court ordered, without explanation, the "imposition of treble damages calculated upon the basis of statutory damages of $10,000 for each bad faith registration as set forth above."13

As noted above, the Lanham Act provides that courts may award attorneys' fees for violations of the ACPA in "exceptional cases" under Section 1117(a).14 Thus far, courts have awarded attorney's fees under Section 1117(a) in addition to statutory damages in many cases.15 A recent decision in a trademark counterfeiting case, however, raises a question on the ability of an ACPA plaintiff to recover both statutory damages and attorneys' fees. Specifically, the Ninth Circuit recently held that an election to recover statutory damages for trademark counterfeiting under Section 1117(c) foreclosed the award of attorneys' fees under Section 1117(b).16 The court found that Sections 1117(a) and 1117(b), which together provide counterfeiting plaintiffs the right to recover trebled actual damages, both also specifically provide for attorneys' fees,17 while Section 1117(c) regarding statutory damages does not.18 Thus, the plaintiff in that case, who elected to recover statutory damages, had no statutory basis for also recovering attorneys' fees under Section 1117(b). The court noted, however, that it did not decide the issue of whether a counterfeiting plaintiff who elected to receive statutory damages was precluded from an award of attorneys' fees for "exceptional cases" under Section 1117(a).19 Similarly, Section 1117(d), which grants ACPA plaintiffs the right to elect to recover statutory damages instead of actual damages, also does not specifically provide for attorneys' fees. It thus remains to be seen whether: (a) other courts will follow the Ninth Circuit's strict analysis of Section 1117(c) in counterfeiting cases, (b) courts will apply a similar analysis to ACPA plaintiffs who seek attorneys' fees under Section 1117(d) in addition to statutory damages, and (c) courts will award attorneys' fees in "exceptional" cases under Section 1117(a) to successful counterfeiting and ACPA plaintiffs that elect to recover statutory damages.

More Proof that he is cybersquatting

WHOIS search results

Domain Name: top10maplisters.com 

Registry Domain ID: 1559985802_DOMAIN_COM-VRSN 

Registrar WHOIS Server: whois.godaddy.com 

Registrar URL: http://www.godaddy.com 

Updated Date: 2018-08-03T15:04:47Z 

Creation Date: 2009-06-22T13:03:11Z 

Registrar Registration Expiration Date: 2019-06-22T13:03:11Z 

Registrar: GoDaddy.com, LLC 

Registrar IANA ID: 146 

Registrar Abuse Contact Email: [email protected] 

Registrar Abuse Contact Phone: +1.4806242505 

Domain Status: clientTransferProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientTransferProhibited 

Domain Status: clientUpdateProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientUpdateProhibited 

Domain Status: clientRenewProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientRenewProhibited 

Domain Status: clientDeleteProhibited http://www.icann.org/epp#clientDeleteProhibited 

Registry Registrant ID: Not Available From Registry 

Registrant Name: Robert Peters 

Registrant Organization: 

Registrant Street: 7090 North Oracle Road 

Registrant Street: Suite 178-311 

Registrant City: Tucson 

Registrant State/Province: Arizona 

Registrant Postal Code: 85704-4333 

Registrant Country: US 

Registrant Phone: +1.9178429469 

Registrant Phone Ext: 

Registrant Fax: +1.4152944469 

Registrant Fax Ext: 

Registrant Email: [email protected] 

Registry Admin ID: Not Available From Registry 

Admin Name: Robert Peters 

Admin Organization: 

Admin Street: 7090 North Oracle Road 

Admin Street: Suite 178-311 

Admin City: Tucson 

Admin State/Province: Arizona 

Admin Postal Code: 85704-4333 

Admin Country: US 

Admin Phone: +1.9178429469 

Admin Phone Ext: 

Admin Fax: +1.4152944469 

Admin Fax Ext: 

Admin Email: [email protected] 

Registry Tech ID: Not Available From Registry 

Tech Name: Robert Peters 

Tech Organization: 

Tech Street: 7090 North Oracle Road 

Tech Street: Suite 178-311 

Tech City: Tucson 

Tech State/Province: Arizona 

Tech Postal Code: 85704-4333 

Tech Country: US 

Tech Phone: +1.9178429469 

Tech Phone Ext: 

Tech Fax: +1.4152944469 

Tech Fax Ext: 

Tech Email: [email protected] 

Name Server: NS27.DOMAINCONTROL.COM 

Name Server: NS28.DOMAINCONTROL.COM 

DNSSEC: unsigned 

URL of the ICANN WHOIS Data Problem Reporting System: http://wdprs.internic.net/ 

>>> Last update of WHOIS database: 2018-11-05T06:00:00Z <<< 

The other domain names now have a private registration but will be show they are registered to Robert Anthony Peters with a Subpoena Duces Tecum.

This is a serious crime and Robert Anthony Peters is in clear violation of this crime! He is a wanna be actor who now will get even less jobs and worse exposure because of his illegal and childish actions. I really hope that you thought it was worth it to hijack my personal and business name!

This will not end well for you Robert Anthony Peters. I am prosecuting to the fullest extent of the law!