You might need a flow chart to track what happened in this weird dispute.
In a bizarre turn of events that underscores the complexities and often bewildering nature of online brand protection, Creatd, Inc., the operator of the digital publishing platform known as Vocal, has emerged victorious in a cybersquatting dispute. The case, adjudicated under the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy (UDRP) by the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), centered around the domain name Vocl.com and involved figures as diverse as MyPillow CEO Mike Lindell and Epik owner Rob Monster. This particular UDRP proceeding stands out as one of the most convoluted and ethically challenging in recent memory, revealing layers of shifting narratives and significant conflicts of interest.
The saga began with Mike Lindell, widely recognized for his MyPillow brand and controversial claims regarding the 2020 U.S. presidential election. Lindell had ambitious plans to launch a new social media platform, envisioned as a hub for free speech, and initially chose the name “Vocl.” However, this choice quickly drew objections from Creatd, Inc., which already operated its well-established platform, “Vocal.” The phonetic and visual similarity between “Vocl” and “Vocal” presented a clear potential for trademark infringement and consumer confusion, prompting Creatd to assert its intellectual property rights. Faced with this opposition, Lindell swiftly pivoted, renaming his nascent platform “Frank.” While Lindell’s public pivot appeared straightforward, the journey of the Vocl.com domain name through this period was anything but simple, involving multiple transactions, price fluctuations, and contradictory accounts.
The intricate timeline of the Vocl.com domain’s ownership, as painstakingly detailed by WIPO panelist David Bernstein, paints a vivid picture of the behind-the-scenes dealings:
As of early March 2021, the record owner of the disputed domain name was Anonymize, which was holding the disputed domain name on behalf of its beneficial owner, Ashwin Vinkhona. On or about March 7, 2021, representatives of Mike Lindell, an American businessman and the CEO of MyPillow, contacted Epik and Anoymize to seek to purchase the disputed domain name. Mr. Lindell intended to use the disputed domain name in connection with a new social media service with an emphasis on free speech that he planned to call VOCL. Mr. Monster, on behalf of Mr. Vinkhona, negotiated the sale of the disputed domain name to Mr. Lindell’s representatives. On March 9, 2021, Mr. Lindell’s agent, Todd Carter, purchased the disputed domain name for Mr. Lindell from Mr. Vinkhona for USD40,000 (with Mr. Monster receiving approximately USD5,000 as a broker commission). Shortly thereafter, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that stated:
Coming Soon
While waiting on Vocl.com to launch why not check out LindellTV.
Visit LindellTV
Also on March 9, 2021, Mr. Lindell filed a U.S. application for the mark VOCL and shortly afterwards announced to media outlets that his new social media service would be named VOCL.
The Complainant sent a cease and desist letter to Mr. Lindell on March 11, 2021 objecting to his planned use of the name VOCL and demanding that Mr. Lindell transfer the domain name to the Complainant. In an interview the next day, Mr. Lindell responded to a question regarding his new site’s name by stating that “we looked into [the name VOCL] and we believe it would be confusing, so we are going to announce a different name and URL.”
Following Mr. Lindell’s announcement, his agents sought to cancel the purchase of the disputed domain name, but the transaction had already been consummated and the purchase price (less commission) had already been distributed to Mr. Vinkhona. After learning that the sale had been consummated, instead of transferring the disputed domain name to the Complainant, Mr. Lindell’s agent engaged in discussions to sell the disputed domain name to the Respondent. On or about March 13, 2021, Mr. Carter (as agent for Mr. Lindell) sold the disputed domain name to Mr. Monster, for USD10,000 (with Mr. Monster using the Anonymize privacy proxy), which represented a 75 per cent reduction from the price that Mr. Lindell paid for the disputed domain name just four days earlier.
This initial account by Panelist Bernstein established a clear narrative: Lindell’s rapid acquisition of Vocl.com for a hefty $40,000, his equally swift abandonment of the name after Creatd’s cease and desist, and the subsequent fire sale of the domain back to Rob Monster for a mere $10,000. This sequence of events, especially the dramatic price drop and the re-acquisition by Monster, raised immediate red flags regarding the intent and legitimacy of the transactions.
However, the journey to this clear account was anything but smooth. The case took a particularly “zaniest” turn due to the conflicting and often misleading statements provided by Rob Monster, the owner of Epik, a domain registrar, and also a key figure in the domain transactions. Bernstein noted the significant discrepancies:
In its first Response, the Respondent claimed that it never transferred the disputed domain name to Mr. Lindell, and that the Respondent had owned the disputed domain name without interruption since September 2020, long before Mr. Lindell announced his plans to start a social media service under the name VOCL. This assertion was inconsistent with the verification provided by the Registrar (of which Mr. Monster is CEO); the Registrar had informed the Center that the “the date on which the current Registrant [whom it identified by name as Mr. Monster] registered (or acquired the registration of) the domain name[]” was January 22, 2000.
This initial claim directly contradicted not only the emerging facts but also the very data provided by Epik, the registrar that Rob Monster himself heads. The stated registration date of January 22, 2000, was also baffling, given the context. The inconsistencies only deepened:
Following the Panel’s request for clarification, the Respondent submitted a supplemental submission in which it represented that Mr. Monster personally acquired the disputed domain name in September 2020, and that, although Epik had discussions with Mr. Lindell’s representatives, Mr. Lindell’s purchase of the disputed domain name was never consummated. In particular, the Respondent claimed in its first supplemental submission that Mr. Lindell’s company transferred USD40,000 to Epik in escrow pending due diligence on the name, but once Mr. Lindell abandoned his interest in the VOCL name, Mr. Lindell cancelled the purchase and the USD40,000 was returned to him from escrow without Mr. Lindell having ever acquired title to the disputed domain name. These representations were made in a submission signed by the Respondent’s counsel (although counsel did state that the Respondent was still searching for documentary support and that the Respondent would supplement the record if it were successful in identifying further information).
The narrative evolved from Monster continuously owning the domain to a complex escrow scenario where Lindell supposedly never completed the purchase. It was only after a direct request for clarification from the WIPO panel that Rob Monster eventually filed a sworn statement six days later, finally correcting his previous submissions and aligning his account with the factual history that Panelist Bernstein ultimately published in the decision. This series of backtracking and evolving stories severely undermined the credibility of the Respondent and raised serious questions about transparency in the UDRP process.
The conflicting statements and Monster’s dual role as Respondent and CEO of the Registrar were a significant point of contention and frustration for Panelist Bernstein. He articulated his concerns about the inherent conflict of interest:
This is an unusual case in that the Respondent is the CEO of the Registrar and also is described as the “governor” and “head” of the Registrar’s subsidiary, Anonymize, which was used for a privacy shield. These relationships create an inherent conflict of interest since the Panel relies on the Registrar to provide accurate information in response to the verification request, but the Respondent, who also is the CEO of the Registrar, would have an interest in hiding accurate information about the ownership of the disputed domain name (not to mention other domain names it may acquire) in order to strengthen the Respondent’s arguments with respect to its purported legitimate interest and potential bad faith.
Bernstein highlighted that had he relied solely on the initial, inaccurate registrar verification dates, he might have reached a different conclusion regarding bad faith registration. This underscores the critical importance of accurate information from registrars in UDRP cases. Even after the corrections, inconsistencies persisted, with emails between the Registrar and Mr. Carter indicating Monster as the direct seller on March 9, 2021, without a broker, while internal escrow documentation presented Monster as a broker for Mr. Vinkhona. Such discrepancies, even minor ones, erode trust and complicate the determination of intent and legitimate interest, which are foundational to UDRP decisions.
The panelist’s frustration extended to the broader implications for the domain name system. Bernstein requested that WIPO share his decision with ICANN, the governing body for domain names, explicitly questioning whether there should be restrictions on registrars, their agents, or employees owning domain names. While such a blanket restriction might be impractical – as registrars and their staff legitimately need to register domains – the underlying sentiment is entirely understandable. The case forcefully illustrates the need for robust rules and stringent penalties to ensure registrars provide accurate and unbiased information to UDRP panels. The integrity of the UDRP process, and by extension, the fairness of domain name dispute resolution, hinges on the reliability of the data provided by these key intermediaries.
Ultimately, despite the labyrinthine path of conflicting statements and complex transactions, the panel found in favor of Creatd. Panelist David Bernstein ordered the immediate transfer of the Vocl.com domain name to Creatd, Inc. This decision serves as a powerful reminder of the importance of online brand protection and the UDRP’s role in safeguarding intellectual property rights against cybersquatting. It also stands as a cautionary tale about the ethical obligations of domain registrars and the necessity for complete transparency, particularly when their leadership is directly involved in domain name disputes. The Vocl.com case will undoubtedly be cited as a prime example of how bad faith can manifest in domain acquisitions and how persistent legal scrutiny is required to uncover the truth.