Domain Eligibility?

[johno69]

There was a tongue in cheek mention of the domain hobartonline.com.au in another thread earlier and curiosity got the better of me. So I clicked the fancy whois button in my toolbar to find this info..

http://screencast.com/t/tN2GkTZmh

Now this raises another issue i'd like some clarification on from someone in the know, as this domain in particular to me seems to have it all wrong.

I was under the impression that domains had to be registered to a legal entity.

Therefore a person, or a company.

A trading name is NOT a legal entity, but simply a name the person can trade as.

So this case where the domain registrant is just a trading name and not a company or a person it fails to meet the criteria.

Please advise if I am wrong.

I was pulled up on this about 8 years ago and had to correct a few domains.

Maybe something has changed?

 

[Blue Wren]

Seems okay to me.

auDA

SCHEDULE C

ELIGIBILITY AND ALLOCATION RULES FOR COM.AU

The com.au 2LD is for commercial purposes.

The following rules are to be read in conjunction with the Eligibility and Allocation Rules for All Open 2LDs, contained in Schedule A of this document.

1. To be eligible for a domain name in the com.au 2LD, registrants must be:
a) an Australian registered company; or
b) trading under a registered business name in any Australian State or Territory; or
c) an Australian partnership or sole trader; or
d) a foreign company licensed to trade in Australia; or
e) an owner of an Australian Registered Trade Mark; or
f) an applicant for an Australian Registered Trade Mark; or
g) an association incorporated in any Australian State or Territory; or
h) an Australian commercial statutory body.

2. Domain names in the com.au 2LD must be:
a) an exact match, abbreviation or acronym of the registrant’s name or trademark; or
b) otherwise closely and substantially connected to the registrant.​

 

[johno69]

Yes I know a business name can be used as eligibility.

But the domain cannot be registered to the business name directly, but to a person using the business name as eligibility criteria.

That's how I read it anyway.

 

[acheeva]

Agreed; but it seems AUDA / the registrars are prepared to overlook this.

There was a previous thread regarding trusts being listed as the registrant.

Neither are legal entities.

 

[Bacon Farmer]

Registrars bugger this up all the time.

 

[Ashman]

I was under the impression that domains had to be registered to a legal entity.

Therefore a person, or a company.

A trading name is NOT a legal entity, but simply a name the person can trade as.

Under the new national business registration system now in the hands of ASIC, the use of trading names in Australia has "lapsed". All trading name records will be deleted from the records early in 2013.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Johno you are right the domain must be registered to an entity, the business name is only a way to be eligible.

The most common error I see is 'XYZ Trust' and 'XYZ Superannuation Fund', these cant be registrants, it needs to be their trustee which is a person or company. As Acheeva said it is overlooked, I suspect deliberately sometimes

 

[Drop.com.au]

You're right Johno, he can't use the Trading Name.

The Registrant field should be: HELLINGMAN, TROY SIERT


-Cam

 

[johno69]

So this might act as a warning to all users here, check your domain registration status.

What would the fix be for such domains? An email to the registrar to have the information corrected, or a COR into the correct name?

I think a COR is a bit much as it's current info is not actually valid so should just be corrected one would think.

I had this issue about 8 years ago that's why it stuck out to me.

 

[Blue Wren]

Thanks johno69 and everyone. Just checked most of mine and the registrant field is as it should be.

Thank you for this knowledge.