Toys.com.au

[findtim]

i'd say kmart a good 25% out in front, then bigw, then target with myer next. toysRus only if there is 1 close by.

tim

 

[James]

Good purchase most corporates would have been out of the office so not one would have bided =)
Big Brands would buy this domain as a defensive move, they would probably just redirect it.

Price is cheap that is for sure, I read something recently regarding average Toy spend in Australian families with kids it was a few thousand a year.

 

[Joel]

Looks like they own toy.com.au which will probably by a PD in the near future.

Did toy.com.au drop? It's certainly not owned by the same deregistered entity anymore.

 

[neddy]

Did toy.com.au drop? It's certainly not owned by the same deregistered entity anymore.

Looks like a private acquisition by a well known purchaser of domains.

 

[Andrew Wright]

Toys R Us Shuts Down $5.1 Million Toys.com Domain Website
http://dotweekly.com/toys-r-us-shuts-down-5-1-million-toys-com-domain-website/

 

[snoopy]

Toys R Us Shuts Down $5.1 Million Toys.com Domain Website
http://dotweekly.com/toys-r-us-shuts-down-5-1-million-toys-com-domain-website/

Interesting article,

I think this is probably the key point

"they naturally rank well for search terms that match the domain"

Perhaps not true any more. It it is still true is is possibly no longer a big factor.

 

[Lemon]

Looks like a private acquisition by a well known purchaser of domains.

If the company that owned it was deregistered then the transfer should not have been approved as the original registrant/entity was no longer entitled to hold the domain under the current policy and the domain should probably have been policy deleted ie dropped.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Removing a website like toys.com from the serps is a gift to position 11.

 

[neddy]

If the company that owned it was deregistered then the transfer should not have been approved as the original registrant/entity was no longer entitled to hold the domain under the current policy and the domain should probably have been policy deleted ie dropped.

Yep, you're technically right. But I reckon this sort of thing happens a lot.

A savvy purchaser may realise that there is potentially an issue with "unfixable eligibility", and so makes the registrant an "offer they can't refuse". The alternative scenario is that a complaint gets made to auDA, and the domain goes to expired auctions, and the seller gets zilch (and the buyer has to compete against others).

The "offer to the registrant" makes particular sense on this particular domain because it can't be backordered on Netfleet. For purposes of this post, I just tried to see if it was available.

"toy.com.au cannot be backordered as is on our exclusion list".

 

[Joel]

A savvy purchaser may realise that there is potentially an issue with "unfixable eligibility", and so makes the registrant an "offer they can't refuse".

I wouldn't say savvy at all, I think it's dodgy. If the issue is an "unfixable eligibility", the domain should drop. If it's unfixable to the old, de-registered entity, then it's also unfixable to the person trying to obtain it.

 

[neddy]

I wouldn't say savvy at all, I think it's dodgy. If the issue is an "unfixable eligibility", the domain should drop. If it's unfixable to the old, de-registered entity, then it's also unfixable to the person trying to obtain it.

Disagree on your use of the word "dodgy" Joel. It happens a lot. For instance, if this situation occurred with a dot com or a co.nz / co.uk, it wouldn't even get a mention.

Speaking personally, I'd far rather people do a deal this way than the alternate of "ambulance chasing" - looking for problems of eligibility; then lodging a contemporaneous complaint with auDA / backorder with Netfleet. That's what I call dodgy. Imho.

However, you have raised an interesting point based on auDA policy. I wonder what auDA's reaction would be if someone made a complaint based on a past event of ineligibilty? Could they or would they "unpick" the present transaction? I can imagine "lawyers at 20 paces" if this happened on a high value domain.

 

[Lemon]

Yep, you're technically right. But I reckon this sort of thing happens a lot.

I agree with you and I imagine it does happen fairly frequently and it generally goes past unnoticed as nobody is aware that a change of registrant has occured. HOWEVER. In this case it is blatantly obvious that a transaction has occurred which is against policy and plenty of people are aware it happened. While I am all for auDA being lenient in the case of fixing incorrect registrant details the original company in this case was deregistered at least 2 years ago.

I am aware of at least 2 auDA board members who are members of this forum and I would expect them to bring this up with auDA as it does not reflect well on the integrity of the .au domain space and basically is a big "one finger" to policy. Personally I would prefer a more relaxed policy but if we all have to follow policy then it should at least be perceived to be enforced.

 

[Lemon]

I just did a whois and now the domain has reverted back to the original registrant.

Domain Name: toy.com.au
Last Modified: 03-Feb-2016 07:29:28 UTC
Status: ok
Registrar Name: Public Domain Registry Pty Ltd

Registrant: B.M.W. Plastics
Registrant ID: ABN 64104662188
Eligibility Type: Company

Seems to be some fiddling about by the Registrar especially considering the last modified date is 03-Feb-2016. I would say it has been modified today or yesterday as I saw it was registered to IVENTURES PTY LTD yesterday.
Its interesting what registrars are able to modify so easily it makes me wonder why we have to pay COR fees considering how easy it is.

 

[Lemon]

Full whois
Domain Name toy.com.au
Last Modified 03-Feb-2016 07:29:28 UTC
Status ok
Registrar Name Public Domain Registry Pty Ltd
Registrant B.M.W. Plastics
Registrant ID ABN 64104662188
Eligibility Type Company
Registrant Contact ID DI_50295846
Registrant Contact Name Premium Domains
Registrant Contact Email ceo@iventures.com.au
Tech Contact ID NFLIG6JVOOZXTPJC
Tech Contact Name Domain Manager
Tech Contact Email Ceo@iVentures.com.au
Tech Contact ID DI_50295846
Tech Contact Name Premium Domains
Tech Contact Email ceo@iventures.com.au
Name Server ns1.fabulous.com
Name Server ns2.fabulous.com
DNSSEC unsigned

Previously it was registered under the ACN and was ineligible as it was deregistered now it seems it is registered under a valid ABN.

Disagree on your use of the word "dodgy" Joel

Really Neddy !!! The question is who registrant or registrar

 

[neddy]

Well I have to say that this "ducking and diving" with registrant names seems dodgy. I'm not sure why they just didn't leave it as it was yesterday? They've done themselves no favours.

It's obviously as a result of reading this thread.

It seems strange that last modified date is 3 February when they clearly modified it again just recently.

 

[johno69]

It seems strange that last modified date is 3 February when they clearly modified it again just recently.

It doesn't help build any confidence in the system at all.