Blog

Published: 24 April 2026

Status: No lawsuit received. No injunction served. No legal costs recovered.

---

Original threatening email from Philipp Redeker of OneOutOfHundred.com

Received on 2026-04-22

Dear Editorial Team,

We refer to our formal notice dated 22 April 2026 concerning your article
“saudinationalteam.com – A $16 Million Bet on Infringement and National Pride”, published on defequer.com.

To date, no response has been received, nor has any corrective action been taken.

This email constitutes a final notice (“last call”).

You are hereby given a strict and final deadline, expiring on:

23 April 2026, 6 PM CET

by which time you must either:

1. Remove the article in its entirety, or
2. Substantially revise it, fully remedying the legal and factual defects expressly identified in our prior correspondence, including but not limited to:
   – the false legal characterization of the UDRP,
   – unsupported and undocumented trademark assertions,
   – the presentation of speculative outcomes as factual certainties, and
   – the use of defamatory labels such as “cybersquatting” stated as fact.

Failure to do so will be regarded as willful continuation of unlawful publication.

Should you fail to comply within the deadline stated above, we are instructed to proceed without further notice with the following steps:

1. Immediate engagement of our partner external legal counsel to pursue all available civil remedies.
2. Initiation of formal proceedings aimed at:
   – obtaining a court‑ordered cease‑and‑desist injunction, and
   – asserting claims for unlawful interference, reputational harm, and dissemination of legally misleading and defamatory statements.
3. Compulsory disclosure of personal and identifying data of the operator(s) of defequer.com through:
   – your hosting provider(s),
   – domain registrar,
   – and content management platform(s), including WordPress and GoDaddy,
   by way of judicial or regulatory information requests and preservation orders.
4. Full recovery of costs, including attorneys’ fees, court fees, and ancillary expenses, for which the site operator(s) will be held personally liable.

This matter is no longer a request for dialogue.
It is a formal pre‑litigation notice.

Your continued silence, after having been clearly informed of the inaccuracies and legal risks inherent in the publication, will be relied upon as evidence of negligent or willful misconduct.

This email affords you a last and final opportunity to resolve the matter swiftly, discreetly, and without judicial involvement.

If corrective action is taken within the stated deadline, the matter may be considered closed.
Absent such action, legal escalation will commence immediately.

Beste Grüße

Philipp Redeker
Managing Partner

---

Our reply:

Dear Herr Redeker,

Thank you for your email of 22 April 2026, your “final notice” of 23 April 2026, and the sheer entertainment value you have provided to the Defequer editorial team.

We have read your letter carefully. We have consulted our own legal counsel (who worked for far less than €450 per hour and did not threaten to sue us for asking questions). And we have arrived at a unanimous decision:

We are not removing the article.

We are not revising it.

We are, however, publishing your email in full – because nothing says “I definitely have a legal case” like a frantic last‑call notice sent at 5:45 PM on a Thursday.

Before we proceed with our satirical rebuttal, let us address your threats point by point. Then we will explain why you are not going to sue, why you cannot sue, and why the only thing you have successfully demonstrated is that you do not understand the difference between satire and defamation – or the difference between €15 million and zero.

---

Your “Legal” Threats – A Point‑by‑Point Roast

You wrote a very long letter. It contained many big words. We were almost impressed. Then we read it again and realised it was mostly hot air with a German postmark.

Let us examine your claims.

“False legal characterization of the UDRP”

You allege that our article mischaracterised the Uniform Domain‑Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). Specifically, you take issue with our statement that the seller “will almost certainly lose the domain” if the Saudi authorities file a complaint.

Herr Redeker, we invite you – nay, we dare you – to explain to our readers how a respondent in a UDRP proceeding would succeed in defending saudinationalteam.com. Show us the legitimate interest. Show us the good faith. Show us the clean hands.

The domain was registered on 15 March 2025, over a decade after the Saudi national football team first competed in the World Cup. The asking price is $15,975,025 – a number that bears no relation to any conceivable business model except “hoping the trademark owner panics and pays.”

Under UDRP paragraph 4(b)(i), “circumstances indicating that you have registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out‑of‑pocket costs directly related to the domain name” is evidence of bad faith.

The seller‘s out‑of‑pocket costs: approximately $30 for registration and renewal. Their asking price: $15,975,025. That is a 532,500x markup. If that is not prima facie evidence of bad faith, we do not know what is.

So no, Herr Redeker, our characterization was not “false.” It was accurate. And if you believe otherwise, we encourage you to represent the seller in a UDRP proceeding. We will bring popcorn.

“Unsupported and undocumented trademark assertions”

You claim we provided no evidence that the Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF) holds trademarks in the phrase “Saudi National Team.”

You are correct that we did not link to a specific trademark registration. Why? Because the article is a satirical blog post, not a legal brief. But since you insist on pedantry, let us educate you:

• The Saudi Arabian Football Federation (SAFF) is the governing body for football in Saudi Arabia. It operates under the authority of the Saudi Olympic Committee and the Ministry of Sport.
• While “Saudi National Team” may not be a registered word mark in every jurisdiction, the combination of “Saudi” + “National” + “Team” – especially in the context of sports merchandising, broadcasting, and commercial sponsorship – is protected under common law trademark rights, passing off, and unfair competition laws in most civil law jurisdictions (including Germany, Herr Redeker).
• More importantly, UDRP panels do not require a registered trademark. They require proof of unregistered or common law trademark rights. See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.3: “A complainant may rely on unregistered or common law trademark rights… Evidence of such rights includes … use of the mark in connection with goods or services that have acquired distinctiveness.”

The Saudi national football team has been competing internationally since 1957. They have played in six World Cups. Their merchandise is sold globally. Their matches are broadcast to millions. That constitutes “acquired distinctiveness” by any reasonable standard.

So your “unsupported” objection is not just wrong – it is embarrassingly wrong. We suggest you read the WIPO Overview before your next threatening email.

“Presentation of speculative outcomes as factual certainties”

You object to our statement that the seller “will almost certainly lose the domain” if a UDRP complaint is filed. You claim we presented a speculative outcome as a factual certainty.

Herr Redeker, we said “almost certainly.” That is not a certainty. It is a probability. And it is a very high probability – approaching 100% – given the overwhelming evidence of bad faith.

If you have examples of UDRP respondents winning cases where they registered a domain containing a national team‘s name, offered it for sale at a 500,000x markup, and had no legitimate use, we invite you to share them. We will wait.

(We are still waiting.)

“Use of defamatory labels such as ‘cybersquatting’ stated as fact”

This is our favourite objection. You claim that calling the seller a “cybersquatter” is defamatory.

The term “cybersquatting” is defined in the Anticyberspace Piracy Act (15 U.S.C. § 1125(d)) as “registering, trafficking in, or using a domain name with bad faith intent to profit from the goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else.”

Let us apply that definition to our seller:

• Registering a domain with bad faith intent? Yes – the domain was registered after the Saudi national team became globally known, with no legitimate use.
• Trafficking in a domain? Yes – it is listed for sale on Sedo for $15.9 million.
• Profit from goodwill of a trademark belonging to someone else? Yes – the only conceivable value of the domain comes from confusion with the Saudi national team.

That is the textbook definition of cybersquatting. Calling it anything else would be inaccurate. So no, Herr Redeker, it is not defamation. It is a factual description supported by U.S. federal law, UDRP precedents, and common sense.

If you believe otherwise, we again invite you to sue. Discovery would be delightful.

---

The “Deadline” That Came and Went

Your final notice gave us until 23 April 2026, 6 PM CET to comply.

As of this writing (24 April 2026, approximately 9 AM CET), we have received:

• No court order
• No injunction
• No lawsuit
• No communication from your “partner external legal counsel”
• No compulsory disclosure requests to our hosting provider, registrar, or content management platform
• No recovery of costs
• No attorneys‘ fees
• Nothing except silence

We checked our spam folder. We checked our mail. We even asked our hosting provider if anyone had contacted them. They laughed.

So either your legal threats were hollow, or your lawyers work very, very slowly. We suspect the former.

---

Who Is Philipp Redeker? A Brief Investigation

You signed your email as “Managing Partner” of OneOutOfHundred.com. So we visited your website. (It is linked in your email signature – not us trying to find you)

Your company, according to your own site, offers:

• “Success Based Recruiting Solutions”
• “Professional Search”
• “Executive Search”
• “Research Services”
• “Kununu & Glassdoor Management”
• “Rejection Management Service”

That is a recruitment agency, Herr Redeker. You are not a law firm. You are not a UDRP specialist. You are not a trademark attorney. You are a headhunter who apparently spends his free time sending threatening emails to satirical websites on behalf of anonymous domain sellers.

We have a question: Who is your client?

Your email does not say. You did not disclose whether you are representing the domain seller, the Saudi Arabian Football Federation, or some other interested party. You simply sent a legal threat on letterhead that has nothing to do with intellectual property law.

So let us ask directly: Herr Redeker, who paid you to write that email? Or did you write it pro bono, out of the goodness of your heart, to defend a stranger‘s right to list saudinationalteam.com for $16 million?

We suspect the answer is either:

1. You are the domain seller yourself (or a friend/associate), and you are using your recruitment agency letterhead to pretend you have legal authority; or
2. You genuinely believe that a recruitment agency‘s “managing partner” has standing to send cease‑and‑desist letters about domain trademark disputes.

Either way, it is hilarious. And we are publishing your email in full so our readers can enjoy it too.

---

Why You Are Not Going to Sue (And Never Were)

Let us be practical, Herr Redeker. Lawsuits cost money. They require standing (the legal right to sue). They require evidence. And they require a plaintiff who is willing to be deposed, cross‑examined, and publicly associated with a domain that begins with “saudi,” ends with “team.com,” and was registered one year ago for the purpose of selling it at a 500,000x markup.

If you represent the domain seller, ask yourself: does he really want his name attached to a UDRP proceeding that he will lose? Does he want the public record to show that he registered saudinationalteam.com in bad faith? Does he want to pay your legal fees and his own and potentially the complainant‘s?

If you represent the Saudi Arabian Football Federation: why would they hire a German recruitment agency to send legal threats instead of their own in‑house counsel or a reputable IP firm? (Answer: they did not. You wrote this letter on your own.)

If you represent neither: you have no standing. Any court would dismiss your claim immediately. And you might be liable for abuse of process.

So go ahead, Herr Redeker. Sue us. File your injunction. Initiate your “formal proceedings.” We will be here. We will countersue for harassment. And we will enjoy every minute of discovery when we ask you to produce your “client’s” identity, your retainer agreement, and your qualifications to practice intellectual property law.

Tick tock.

---

Our Counter‑Offer (Since You Like Deadlines)

You gave us a deadline. Now we give you one.

You have until 1 May 2026, 6 PM CET to:

1. File a lawsuit against Defequer in a competent court of law;
2. Provide us with the case number and court information; or
3. Publish a public retraction of your legal threats on your company website and LinkedIn profile.

If you do none of the above, we will assume that your letter was a bluff – a pathetic, transparent, legally illiterate bluff – and we will update this article accordingly.

---

The Bottom Line – Satire Is Not Defamation, and Threats Are Not Law

The Defequer editorial team stands by every word of our original article. saudinationalteam.com is a classic example of bad‑faith domain registration. The price is delusional. The trademark risks are real. And our “roast” was firmly within the bounds of protected opinion, satire, and criticism.

Your legal threats, Herr Redeker, are not protected. They are an attempt to intimidate a small publication into removing content you dislike. That is not how free speech works. That is not how domain law works. And that is certainly not how “Success Based Recruiting Solutions” works.

We would offer you advice, but you did not pay for it. Instead, we offer you this: next time, do not send a final notice unless you are prepared to follow through. Bluffs are easily called. And we are holding all the cards.

---

Defequer Rating for Philipp Redeker’s Legal Threat: 💩💩💩💩💩 (5/5 shits)

Five shits. Not for the domain seller this time, but for the “managing partner” who wrote 1,500 words of legally illiterate threats on recruitment agency letterhead. The combination of no standing, no lawsuit, no understanding of UDRP, and a hilarious overestimation of his own importance earns top marks in the Delusion Olympics – Legal Division.

Roast served. Bluff called. Next frivolous legal threat, please.

---

Post‑Script to Our Readers

Dear Defequer community,

We promised you honest, brutal, satirical roasts of overpriced domains. We never promised to back down from legal threats written by people who do not understand the difference between a satirical blog and a legal brief.

If you receive a threatening email from a “managing partner” who thinks UDRP stands for “You Definitely Regret Posting” – forward it to us. We will publish it. We will roast it. And we will not remove a single word.

Thank you for your continued support. Defequer is here to stay.

Roast served. Freedom of speech defended. Next domain, please.

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.

1. 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.
   
2. 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.
   
3. 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.
   
4. 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.
   
5. 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.
   
6. 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:

1. Remove the article in its entirety, or
   
2. 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