Btw it is reported that Leupay is trying to re-brand as Leopay now...lol. So if your case makes it to court you may end up chasing Satabank, Leupay and Leopay entities - all the same ownership but designed to cause maximum confusion.
Payments company commits reverse domain name hijacking - Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff
After investigating them further I actually closed my accounts with LeuPay. Should have never involved myself with a Bulgarian owned company. It is like small European banks with middle east owners..it never ends well. If you read the full text of the wipo dispute proceedings (in link below) where they are [Complainant], look at the way they tried to obtain the domain name leopay.com from its owner [Respondent]. They literally submitted an anonymous offer to buy domain from owner which owner who requested a higher price. Then they turned around and used his response as evidence to support legal proceedings to ultimately try and hijack the domain from its existing owner of nearly 10 years. I have nothing but contempt for their actions and moral values. This to me speaks volumes about their ethics and use of dirty tricks....lol. I don't know what to make of this opaque company, but if I smell danger I run.
WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2018-0151
-----extract of case------
C.1. Offer to Sell
The Complainant relies upon the Respondent’s pre-Complaint offer to sell the disputed domain name to assert bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.
The Panel considers the Complainant unable to avail itself of this ground of bad faith, as the Complainant did not possess any rights in the LEUPAY Trade Mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant is therefore unable to establish that the disputed domain name was registered in order to profit from or exploit the Complainant’s (then non-existent) LEUPAY Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.1).
Furthermore, in light of (i) the Panel’s finding as to the Complainant’s failure to satisfy the lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (ii) the manner in which the Complainant’s representative solicited the Respondent’s offer, the Panel finds that the circumstances of this proceeding do not support a finding of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) in any event.
The evidence relied upon by the Complainant is the following email chain:
“Subject: leopay.com quote
On Tuesday, August 15, 2017… [the Complainant’s representative] wrote:
Hi, what is the price of leopay.com?
I have a client who is ready to buy it for 1000 EUR.
Thank you very much…
Wednesday, September 13, 2017… Yongchang Zhang wrote:
200000 EUR.
This is my seller price
Contact me, please hit my cell phone number…
On Friday, September 22, 2017… [the Complainant’s representative] wrote:
Hello,
my client offers 5000 EUR final price,
please advise,
thank you very much,
best regards…
From: Yongchang Zhang
To: [the Complainant’s representative]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017…
Hello,
my final price 100000 EUR,
Contact me, please hit my cell phone number… “
The Panel accepts the Respondent’s submissions that, when he received this anonymous email, he did not know who the other side was, he thought the offer to buy the disputed domain name may have been a joke, and he casually replied (with a high counter-offer) for interest’s sake and in order to find out if the disputed domain name was popular. The Respondent submits that, as the sender of the email did not respond further, and did not contact the Respondent by telephone as requested, he thought the offer to buy the disputed domain name from a stranger was not genuine.
The Respondent asserts that he really likes the disputed domain name and that he will never sell it.
The Respondent further asserts that the solicitation of his offer was undertaken in bad faith in order to obtain evidence in support of this proceeding.
Payments company commits reverse domain name hijacking - Domain Name Wire | Domain Name News & Website Stuff
After investigating them further I actually closed my accounts with LeuPay. Should have never involved myself with a Bulgarian owned company. It is like small European banks with middle east owners..it never ends well. If you read the full text of the wipo dispute proceedings (in link below) where they are [Complainant], look at the way they tried to obtain the domain name leopay.com from its owner [Respondent]. They literally submitted an anonymous offer to buy domain from owner which owner who requested a higher price. Then they turned around and used his response as evidence to support legal proceedings to ultimately try and hijack the domain from its existing owner of nearly 10 years. I have nothing but contempt for their actions and moral values. This to me speaks volumes about their ethics and use of dirty tricks....lol. I don't know what to make of this opaque company, but if I smell danger I run.
WIPO Domain Name Decision: D2018-0151
-----extract of case------
C.1. Offer to Sell
The Complainant relies upon the Respondent’s pre-Complaint offer to sell the disputed domain name to assert bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the Policy.
The Panel considers the Complainant unable to avail itself of this ground of bad faith, as the Complainant did not possess any rights in the LEUPAY Trade Mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant is therefore unable to establish that the disputed domain name was registered in order to profit from or exploit the Complainant’s (then non-existent) LEUPAY Trade Mark (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.1).
Furthermore, in light of (i) the Panel’s finding as to the Complainant’s failure to satisfy the lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and (ii) the manner in which the Complainant’s representative solicited the Respondent’s offer, the Panel finds that the circumstances of this proceeding do not support a finding of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) in any event.
The evidence relied upon by the Complainant is the following email chain:
“Subject: leopay.com quote
On Tuesday, August 15, 2017… [the Complainant’s representative] wrote:
Hi, what is the price of leopay.com?
I have a client who is ready to buy it for 1000 EUR.
Thank you very much…
Wednesday, September 13, 2017… Yongchang Zhang wrote:
200000 EUR.
This is my seller price
Contact me, please hit my cell phone number…
On Friday, September 22, 2017… [the Complainant’s representative] wrote:
Hello,
my client offers 5000 EUR final price,
please advise,
thank you very much,
best regards…
From: Yongchang Zhang
To: [the Complainant’s representative]
Sent: Monday, September 25, 2017…
Hello,
my final price 100000 EUR,
Contact me, please hit my cell phone number… “
The Panel accepts the Respondent’s submissions that, when he received this anonymous email, he did not know who the other side was, he thought the offer to buy the disputed domain name may have been a joke, and he casually replied (with a high counter-offer) for interest’s sake and in order to find out if the disputed domain name was popular. The Respondent submits that, as the sender of the email did not respond further, and did not contact the Respondent by telephone as requested, he thought the offer to buy the disputed domain name from a stranger was not genuine.
The Respondent asserts that he really likes the disputed domain name and that he will never sell it.
The Respondent further asserts that the solicitation of his offer was undertaken in bad faith in order to obtain evidence in support of this proceeding.
