Few names I've been sitting on for years, interesting in hearing your thoughts

[DamianLondon]

Hi all

I have a few DN's that I'd be interested in hearing the forums thoughts on:

southerncross.com.au - picked it up in 2007, no idea where or how, long time ago, but from memory it was just available. Had an offer of $20K last year, which I rejected.

businessfranchise.com.au - registered pre. 2005 from memory, some interest, but highest offer received only around the $4K mark from memory.

barossavalley.com.au - one which has interest every 2-3 months, but not at the levels which I'd like to see.

Thanks

D

 

[neddy]

I really like southerncross.com.au and barossavalley.com.au - nice names.

If I got a $20k offer on SC.com.au, I would have been very tempted to take it. But that's just me ..........

 

[James]

southern cross is an interesting name! Alot of businesses have this specific name too which is another interesting point. Also a symbol of Australia too, and dont forget all the young kids with "Southern Cross" Tattoos hehe.. 20k is a healthy offer I would have seen if you could push it more but =)

Business Franchise - interesting name some one was having a chat to me about this niche only just yesterday hehe =)

Barossa Valley - Very nice name I mean when people come to Australia (and love wine) it is one of the two wine regions which are must see's..Should fix the Google ads on that site too imo, not a fan of the standard ones they don't blend in..

 

[jhellyer]

businessfranchise.com.au would have to be a cracker these days with the franchise market being so strong. The others are obviously strong.

 

[DamianLondon]

Thanks all, appreciate the feedback.

Yep, Barossavalley.com.au needs an update. Unfortunately, just don't have the time at present to maintain all my websites that are live, still brings in a few bucks every month.

SC is a name which I wanted to develop as well. It gets organic/type in traffic and makes money, even with just a pseudo parked page. Had an old HTML directory of sorts there, which I removed a while back. I personally believe this is a name to sit on until the right offer comes along.

businessfranchise.com.au was developed, but pulled as well. Again another directory.

 

[snoopy]

Very nice names.

Regarding southerncross.com.au, common brand name, but not sure I'd let that 20k buyer get away, perhaps a deal can be done a bit higher. I think that is a pretty good offer. Personally would not be trying to develop this name.

 

[sensoryfx]

I would be very careful sitting on names, and especially telling everyone you have had a 20g offer. If someone has a legitimate claim to the domain name, and they can prove it hasn't really been used for anything related to the name, you could loose it.

 

[BenWalker]

I would be very careful sitting on names, and especially telling everyone you have had a 20g offer. If someone has a legitimate claim to the domain name, and they can prove it hasn't really been used for anything related to the name, you could loose it.

I was thinking the same when I visited southerncross.com.au.

Are there any implications? If someone who is familiar with the Policy can clarify that will be great!

Thanks!

 

[DamianLondon]

Thanks for the feedback.

So if I have a $20,$300 or$40,000 offer on Netfleet for a domain name which is parked, what are the implications? Can AUDA delete them or anyone go through the list and say, I have claim to this?

My understanding is that you cannot register a domain name for the sole purpose of a resale. This was a developed site, but pulled down.

Appreciate the feedback.

D

 

[sensoryfx]

Recently I had someone register the .com.au of my business name, of which I only had the .com. They even started to develop the site.

I placed a complaint to auDA citing the reason was that the site had nothing to do with their core business, and that I owned the trademark to the name.

auDA cancelled their registration of the domain name and I was then able to register it.

So even if you have a developed site for a domain name, don't be so sure it cant be taken from you.

 

[DamianLondon]

Thanks for the comments from all.

 

[nina]

Recently I had someone register the .com.au of my business name, of which I only had the .com. They even started to develop the site.

I placed a complaint to auDA citing the reason was that the site had nothing to do with their core business, and that I owned the trademark to the name.

auDA cancelled their registration of the domain name and I was then able to register it.

So even if you have a developed site for a domain name, don't be so sure it cant be taken from you.

Do you think the trademark got you the deal - I have a pty company that I own and the domain name was registered to another company several years ago. I own the .net.au version of it, and have emailed them but no response.

I emailed auDA and they said bad luck.. so I am surprised that I can own a company name, and yet not have rights to the .com.au registration, but I do not have it trademarked.

the site has not been used for around 3 years now I believe.. so it's a bit frustrating..

Nina

 

[GGroup]

.. so I am surprised that I can own a company name, and yet not have rights to the .com.au registration

One entity's eligibility to register a .com.au domain does not automatically negate any and all other entities' eligibility to register the same domain.

Company name, trademark or otherwise, there is no hierarchy of eligibility. Therefore, first in, best dressed.

... not to be confused with trademark/copyright infringement or "passing off" (no, not the kind you blame on the dog).

 

[nina]

Oh I am confused about that comment sorry - so it's OK for me to register a domain name of someone else's business, and just have it sit there with nothing on it until I decide what I want to do with it and it is not called squatting as long as I am not actually representing the business in which the name belongs to?

Nina

 

[neddy]

Oh I am confused about that comment sorry - so it's OK for me to register a domain name of someone else's business, and just have it sit there with nothing on it until I decide what I want to do with it and it is not called squatting as long as I am not actually representing the business in which the name belongs to?

Nina

Lots of people get confused Nina, so don't feel alone.

There are many factors to consider; and there are a few different areas of auDA policy.

But for the purpose of this exercise, let's assume that any domain name you want to register (or you already have) is going to have a site built on it - or you are going to park it. And whichever option you choose you are going to run adsense or affiliate advertising. In other words you are going to "monetize" the domain.

This then falls under auDA's Domain Monetisation Policy (2008-10)

Have a read of it - it's not long. Here are the key points:

4.3 In addition to their obligations under auDA Published Policies and the Registrant Agreement (domain name licence), domainers must comply with the following conditions of use:

a) the content on a monetised website must be related specifically and predominantly to the domain name; and

b) the domain name must not be, or incorporate, an entity name, personal name or brand name in existence at the time the domain name was registered.

4.6 The condition in paragraph 4.3b) is intended to ensure that domain monetisation is not used as a cover for cybersquatting or other misleading or fraudulent activity. In determining whether a domainer is in breach of paragraph 4.3b), auDA will take into account whether the domain name is a generic word or may have an alternative meaning which is not related to a specific entity, person or brand.

So Nina, I hope this sort of answers your questions. Obviously there are still loopholes like domain names comprising "generic words".

My simple answer is that if you register a domain name that is identical to an existing business name or company or brand, then you are asking for trouble. The only possible exceptions are generic words; or if you have a similar business that offers you a "close and substantial" connection and which you will feel comfortable fending off any challenges.

Cheers, Ned

 

[joe]

good advice Ned & CGroup

It seems to me that being able to prove "bad faith" is hugely important in the dispute process. You might have a TM, business name and/or a reputation for being associated with a term but still not have the right to it if you can't show the other guy registered it just to disrupt someone's business or to resell.

There are a few dozen registered TMs for "southern cross" which would suggest to me it's fair game as long as you don't pass off as being one of them.

Pretty sure nobody owns the Crux constellation and I found the content on your site informative to that end. "Does what it says on the tin"

 

[nina]

Thanks for that better explanation - sometimes I need to read things over a few times before I understand them better.

I can see now why my request did not meet the criteria -
>>>
b) the domain name must not be, or incorporate, an entity name, personal name or brand name in existence at the time the domain name was registered.
>>>

Although the name is world wide, and although I also registered the .net.au around the same time, the fact is I did not have a company name of the same at that point.

Originally the domain name was registered to a previous company that sold out and the domain name went with it, and when things turned pear shaped, alas the domain has simply been there on a blank, non resolving page. Bit mean but I guess it was a business decision.

Anyway- that paragraph has shed the light I need and I'm very appreciative of the feedback here to help clarify.

Nina

 

[neddy]

Anyway- that paragraph has shed the light I need and I'm very appreciative of the feedback here to help clarify.

Hi Nina - I remembered that Jo Lim from auDA wrote an article on the "Domain Monetisation Policy". This was published
on the auDA blog: http://blog.auda.org.au/ Scroll down to May 13th.

This is from the "horses mouth" so to speak.

By the way, I also sent you a PM.
.

 

[nina]

Thanks Ned - I replied you.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Ned is right, the monetisation policy is the one to watch out for. It is one of the most stupid and broken policies auDA currently administers.