Dangerous Domains

[neddy]

I've noticed recently that a lot more trademarked or branded domains are being picked up on the drops.

This really concerns me (particularly if it continues) - as I believe that this could impact on all of us. By all of us I mean domainers; domain investors; developers and consultants.

Why? Simply because our market is so regulated - and many of us have fought long and hard to get some basic freedoms - e.g.:

• The right to re-sell domains (yes at one stage it wasn't allowed!)
  
  
• The rescinding of the 6 month rule (where you had to have a domain for 6 months before you could even contemplate selling it).
  
  
• Having "domain monetisation" as a "close and substantial" connection (a commercial reason to acquire a domain or domains).

I am not criticizing anyone in particular - but I do urge people to be aware of all the "rules"; and more importantly to abide by them. Not to do so will probably bring the wrath of auDA upon you ( a complete audit and possible forfeiture of all or some of your portfolio).

And ultimately the actions of a few have the potential to set us all back. You just have to go on Whingepool or Flying Solo to see how many people complain about "squatters". You got to remember the more complaints auDA gets; the more chance there is of the rules being tightened again.

We want more freedom - not more regulation.

Just my opinion.

 

[James]

Yep trademarks are trouble, not worth the money.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

I get concerned when I see typo domains, and trademarked names being registered. Having said that, fortunately this behaviour is still very isolated. For all the people who are new to the industry it pays to read DNTrade but also review auDA policies here.

Current policy provides a good balance between the right to buy and sell domains while at the same time protecting other internet users. It was a hard fought battle to get to this stage by some of us on this forum.

 

[helloworld]

Well I just had a look at todays drops and noticed spinners.com.au on there. Trademarked etc....

 

[neddy]

Well I just had a look at todays drops and noticed spinners.com.au on there. Trademarked etc....

There will always be exceptions to the rule. Plenty of different trademark classes.

One could do a great site on Shane Warne, Murali, Graeme Swann etc.

As the actress said to the Bishop, "it all depends on how you use it"!

My original post basically referred to blatant abuses - where there is little likelihood that a domain was acquired for anything other than the traffic (that a TM or branded domain would have enjoyed).

And if you "park" one of these domains, you have to be so careful that the adsense doesn't throw up a link to the original trademark. Or if you don't do anything with the domain and just sit on it.

In either of these cases, if someone complains to auDA, then you're almost certainly a goner!

Once again, just my opinion.

 

[findtim]

spring cleaning starts september 1st

tim

 

[helloworld]

Can you list some domains you're talking about Neddy?

 

[neddy]

Can you list some domains you're talking about Neddy?

As I said in my initial post, I don't want to criticize anyone in particular.

Most people that follow the drops will have an inkling of what I'm talking about though. A few particular domains have been mentioned on DNT in the past.

The fact is that probably a lot of us have registered or snapped "iffy" domains in the past - but we've learnt our lessons.

However there are some people who haven't - and there is also a new breed of buyer out there who don't seem to know the rules. That's what I'm worried about - because their behaviour could ultimately affect good domainers / investors.

I know of four different people who have had auDA audits of their whole portfolios (because they have asked me for help), and it's not a fun process. Once you get on their radar, it's difficult (but not impossible) to erase the blip.