On 21 April 2026, Defequer received an email from Philipp Redeker, Managing Partner of oneoutofhundred GmbH (Aachen, Germany), demanding the correction or complete removal of our article titled “saudinationalteam.com – A $16 Million Bet on Infringement and National Pride.”
After thorough internal review against the principles set out in our cornerstone pages — Our Manifesto, Why We Do It, How We Roast, No Bribes, No Bull, and Why Defequer — we have decided to retain the original article in its entirety and publish this detailed public response.
Defequer exists to provide independent, satirical commentary and consumer education on publicly offered domain names. Our work is explicitly opinion-based and protected under principles of free expression. We take legal correspondence seriously and have therefore prepared this comprehensive reply.
The Original Email – Full Transparency
For complete context, here is the full text of the email we received (reproduced verbatim, with only formatting adjusted for readability):
Subject: Correction or Removal of published Article
Dear Editorial Team,
We are writing in relation to your article entitled “saudinationalteam.com – A $16 Million Bet on Infringement and National Pride,” published on defequer.com.
Following a careful review of the content, we respectfully request a prompt reassessment and correction—or, alternatively, removal—of the article, as it contains multiple factual inaccuracies, legally misleading statements, and unsupported assertions that collectively convey an incorrect impression of unlawful conduct.
For clarity and transparency, we outline the principal issues below.
- Mischaracterization of the UDRP as “Applicable Law”
The article repeatedly presents the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) as though it constituted binding law or statutory regulation. This is inaccurate. The UDRP is a private administrative dispute resolution framework administered under ICANN policy. It is not statutory law, does not create legal liability, and does not impose legal sanctions beyond domain transfer or cancellation. Presenting the UDRP as a form of “law” or treating an alleged UDRP risk as an inherent legal violation is materially misleading to readers.
- Overbroad Assertion Regarding Ownership of National Team Names
he statement: “You cannot own a country’s team name” is presented as a categorical rule. Such a rule does not exist. Terms such as “Saudi National Team” are, in principle, descriptive expressions. Any exclusivity depends solely on specific, registered trademark rights, assessed on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction basis. Absent such registrations, there is no general prohibition on registering, holding, or offering domains containing descriptive national references. The article’s phrasing therefore overstates the legal position.- Unsupported Claims of Trademark Ownership
The article asserts that Saudi sporting or governmental bodies hold trademark rights in the term “Saudi National Team,” yet no specific trademark is identified. In particular, the article does not provide trademark registration numbers, the relevant trademark registry, the protected word mark itself, or the territorial scope of protection. Without this information, these statements remain unsubstantiated allegations, rather than verifiable facts.- Incorrect Equating of Domain Registration with Legal Infringement
The article suggests that the mere registration or offering for sale of the domain constitutes a legal violation. This is not correct. As a general matter: Domain registration is lawful, Passive holding of a domain is lawful, and Offering a domain for sale—even at a high price—is lawful. Any legal assessment depends on specific additional conduct, such as demonstrable intent to mislead, confuse consumers, or exploit established trademark rights. The article does not establish such conduct.- Use of the Term “Cybersquatting” as a Stated Fact
The repeated characterization of the domain holder as a “cybersquatter” appears in the article as a statement of fact, rather than as opinion. Absent a final UDRP decision or court judgment, this constitutes a premature and potentially defamatory characterization, as it asserts improper conduct without adjudication or proof.- Presentation of Speculative Outcomes as Certainties
Statements suggesting that the domain holder “will almost certainly lose the domain” or that litigation is inevitable present speculative legal outcomes as established fact. Such phrasing does not reflect the conditional and fact-specific nature of trademark or UDRP assessments and may therefore mislead readers regarding the actual legal risks involved.
Request and Timeline
In light of the above, we request that you no later than 23.04.2026 9am CET either:
- Remove the article in its entirety, or
- Substantially revise it, including:
– Correcting the legal characterization of the UDRP,
– Removing unsupported trademark claims,
– Clearly distinguishing opinion from verifiable fact, and
– Eliminating conclusory or stigmatizing labels such as “cybersquatting.”
Should no action be taken within this timeframe, we reserve the right to consider additional steps.
Beste Grüße
Philipp Redeker
Managing Partner
https://www.oneoutofhundred.com/de/
We appreciate the sender providing the full text and have reproduced it here so our readers can evaluate the request in full context.
Our Legal and Editorial Position
Defequer operates as a platform for satirical commentary and consumer education on the public domain aftermarket. Every article is clearly presented within an established satirical style that readers recognise and expect. This context is critical under free-speech protections in both German and international law.
On the characterisation of UDRP
The Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy is exactly what the letter correctly describes: a private administrative framework created by ICANN. Our article referred to it in that precise context — as the primary mechanism used by trademark holders to challenge domain registrations they believe violate their rights. We did not describe UDRP as statutory criminal law. The article’s discussion of potential UDRP risk was framed as an assessment of commercial and practical outcomes, not as a declaration of statutory violation.
On national-team names and trademark rights
Our commentary focused on the commercial wisdom and public-interest implications of registering and offering for sale a domain that directly incorporates the name of a national sports team at a $16 million price point. Such opinion is protected. The article did not claim a universal legal prohibition; it expressed scepticism about the strategy and highlighted the well-documented risk that national sporting bodies frequently pursue UDRP or court action when their identifiers are used commercially. This is standard industry observation, not an unsupported legal assertion.
On the term “cybersquatting”
In the context of a clearly labelled satire blog, the word “cybersquatting” is rhetorical hyperbole and opinion, not a literal legal finding. Courts in Germany (under Article 5 of the Basic Law – freedom of expression and art) and in jurisdictions following similar principles routinely protect strong, hyperbolic language in opinion and parody pieces. Readers of Defequer understand the tone; the article was never presented as a formal legal judgment.
On domain registration and offering for sale
We fully agree that mere registration and offering of a domain for sale is not inherently illegal. The article did not claim otherwise. It criticised the specific commercial decision to ask $16 million for a name that closely mirrors a national team identifier — a strategy we view as high-risk and of questionable value to potential end-users. This is consumer-protection commentary, not a legal accusation.
On speculative language
Phrases such as “will almost certainly lose” are standard rhetorical devices in opinion writing. They reflect the author’s reasoned assessment based on publicly observable patterns in domain disputes involving similar names. They do not constitute legal advice or guarantees.
Why the Article Remains Published
Removing or substantially altering the piece would contradict the core mission stated across our cornerstone pages: to provide independent, uncompromised analysis of publicly listed domain offerings, no matter the price or the parties involved. As we state in No Bribes, No Bull, we do not accept external pressure that could compromise editorial independence. As we state in Why We Do It, our goal is public education and market transparency.
We have archived the original email and this response for complete transparency and future reference.
Invitation to Good-Faith Engagement
Should the actual rights holder (or their authorised legal counsel) wish to provide verified evidence of specific trademark registrations or engage in substantive dialogue, we remain open to reviewing it. We do not, however, respond to arbitrary deadlines or veiled threats from third-party recruiting firms acting on unspecified instructions.
Final Statement
Defequer will continue its work of offering satirical yet fact-based commentary on the domain aftermarket. Our commitment to consumer education and independent analysis remains absolute. We stand by the original article as protected opinion and satire.
The Defequer Team
23 April 2026