Drops today - September 2014
- Thread starter Cal
- Start date
Jamie-AU
Regular Member
I notice wikipedia.com.au is dropping according to the list at http://www.ausregistry.com.au/tools/official-domain-name-drop
Any value in the .com.au version of one of the world's top 10 websites, wikipedia.org?
Any value in the .com.au version of one of the world's top 10 websites, wikipedia.org?
eBranding.com.au
Top Contributor
How are you going to demonstrate a legimate reason for ownership?
Active trademarks here and overseas.
I think it would be pretty foolish going for this one.
Likely scenario could be: you spend money to grab it on the drop, it gets policy deleted, you lose your money and now have a big flag over your head for further examination by auda.
It's pretty much a prime example of cyber-squatting, just don't do it! I'm not suggesting that you would, just making a general statement.
Jamie-AU
Regular Member
I wasn't thinking of getting it myself, I was just curious as to:
1) Why the domain had been under non-Wikipedia ownership for more than a decade
2) Why there appeared to be no interest by Wikipedia to secure that domain given that today's drop was a natural expiry, not a policy delete drop
3) And now, why LogicStorm P/L are the new domain owners.
1) Why the domain had been under non-Wikipedia ownership for more than a decade
2) Why there appeared to be no interest by Wikipedia to secure that domain given that today's drop was a natural expiry, not a policy delete drop
3) And now, why LogicStorm P/L are the new domain owners.
eBranding.com.au
Top Contributor
For the first two points, your guess is as good as mine!
On the last point, you could ask Jay directly, as they're a member of this forum (logicstorm). They took ownership having won the bidding on drop.com.au
neddy
Top Contributor
I don't think they will be for long (that's my considered guess).
neddy
Top Contributor
I was just editing this, but ran out of time.
wikkipedia.com.au (which is a misspelling) is on auDA's List of Prohibited Misspellings
Therefore, the correct spelling has got to be an absolute no-no. Particularly for the reasons Demonoid mentioned.
Imho.
findtim
Top Contributor
along the same lines I'm interested about people opinions on this question re trademarks, does an "s" make a difference ?
dropping today is Birkenstocks.com.au ( I'm not bidding ), Birkenstock.com.au is a well known brand of shoes and trademarked but you could see why adding an "s" may attract a fair level of searches.
tim
dropping today is Birkenstocks.com.au ( I'm not bidding ), Birkenstock.com.au is a well known brand of shoes and trademarked but you could see why adding an "s" may attract a fair level of searches.
tim
eBranding.com.au
Top Contributor
No, it usually doesn't. E.g. 'Googles', 'Sonys', 'Wikipedias'... would all still be blatant cybersquatting on trademarks.
eBranding.com.au
Top Contributor
Cooper Mills DomainLawyer
Top Contributor
No. By adding or removing an S can still make a term substantially identical or deceptively similar - otherwise in trade mark law you would have stupid outcomes like someone trying to register Nikes instead of Nike, not a desirable situation
findtim
Top Contributor
do you feel it also depends on the BRAND awareness? eg: nike v nikes is plainly obvious but dubbodentist v dubbodentists would potentially not have the same repercussions ?
tim
Jamie-AU
Regular Member
Re: Wikipedia.com.au dropping and then being registered by LogicStorm P/L:
And you're right. Wikipedia.com.au now has the status "pendingDelete (Client requested policy delete)"
And you're right. Wikipedia.com.au now has the status "pendingDelete (Client requested policy delete)"
