Netfleet premium domain lists?

[snoopy]

Some very strange additions in the newsletter that has just gone out,

///////

"windows7.net.au - Target Price: $2950.00 AUD

Windows Latest and Greatest Operating system. . Do you see the potential here? . Reviews? Tips and Tricks? Forums? Reseller? . Premium Domain Take Advantage Now... "

ebay.net.au - Target Price: $5000.00 AUD
///////

Surely these are just AUDA deletion bait?

 

[djuqa]

I was just thinking the same!

Netfleet does not need the adverse reactions from selling these type of names.

 

[hadhad]

...

 

[Billy01]

Why Wouldn't

you take the advertisers cash??????????????????????

Oooppsss

 

[Drop.com.au]

Interesting read on this topic:

http://www.circleid.com/posts/google_ebay_keywords_domains_icann/

George

 

[davids]

Was a very interesting read indeed, George! Was well worth the time spent reading it

 

[DavidL]

Hi Guys,

Let me ask you all a few questions.

Do you think we should have not allowed the registrants of these domains to have listed them?
Do you think the registrars should not have allowed the registrants to register them?
Do you think if they were to drop, they should be withheld from any official or unofficial drop lists?
Do you think auDA should delete them immediately?

I strongly feel that the answer to all these questions is no! Whether a domain is a trademark infringement or not is a complicated area and generally solved by a fairly lengthy independent process involving legal experts (WIPO).

We don't pretend to have the knowledge or expertise to decide whether a domain is infringing or not and, consequently, choose not to vet domains for listing on Netfleet. I think to do otherwise would open up a can or worms.

Note: auDA would not delete these domains as far as I know. I think generally potentially TM-infringing domains will be only deleted out of hand if they are on the misspellings list or fall into the monetisation policy... Is that right George?

Re that link George and Google's approach with TM terms and Adwords, it's something that frustrates me in my other business (selling cars) as they don't allow advertisers to use TM terms in their campaigns in Australia (unlike most of the rest of the world)

It means that although I may want to sell a Holden Commodore, I literally can't advertise on Google because I can't trigger ads for search terms that include 'holden'!


Thanks for the feedback

David

 

[Data Glasses]

i must admit when i saw ebay ...... i thought could ebay sue netfleet ?

i would try and avoid such names being listed , once i had a notice from sedo in regards to a complaint of a trademark holder and they delisted my name

of course we all wish netfleet ongoing success

 

[DavidL]

Yeah spacey - parking companies seem to be the exception in the domain world. Many do try to police TM infringing domains. They probably get it right most of the time but I bet they do get into huge arguments with domain owners at times because it is rarely black & white.

 

[snoopy]

Hi Guys,

Let me ask you all a few questions.

Do you think we should have not allowed the registrants of these domains to have listed them?
Do you think the registrars should not have allowed the registrants to register them?
Do you think if they were to drop, they should be withheld from any official or unofficial drop lists?
Do you think auDA should delete them immediately?

I strongly feel that the answer to all these questions is no! Whether a domain is a trademark infringement or not is a complicated area and generally solved by a fairly lengthy independent process involving legal experts (WIPO).

Now I'm not against people registering TM names, people can make their own choices, I just find it baffling why an email like that would go out.

I see it as a bit of an embarrassment for the industry, even though it probably says a lot about the industry. Regardless of whether it is a paid placement the names are labeled premium names and we are told they will "go quick" and are "great names". So whether you are unsure what a trademark infringement is you are basically endorsing these names. Calling these great names is a bit like a real estate agent selling a flat in Redfern and calling it Australia's finest suburb.

Having said that what sort of person can be unsure whether ebay.net.au infringes a trademark? That isn't complicated at all. Everyone here knows it, the guy who registered it likely knows it, netfleet who has a lot of experience in the domain industry is not sure?

It would be comparable to a parking company advertising that they have a whole lot of TM names are on their system....now that might just be being honest but it is a major credibility drain. Or how about if Netregistry gave some examples of names recently registered by clients, and the examples were google***.com.au, xbox****.com.au.

The email is pretty strange in my opinion.

 

[DavidL]

Having said that what sort of person can be unsure whether ebay.net.au infringes a trademark? That isn't complicated at all. Everyone here knows it, the guy who registered it likely knows it, netfleet who has a lot of experience in the domain industry is not sure?

OK if it's so clearcut, why won't auDA delete it? They have the power to do so?

The answer is, of course, whether a trademark is being infringed is rarely black and white - it's usually one of a million shades of grey (some clearly darker than others!)

Distinguishing between these greys is difficult so we choose not to. As do auDA, registrars, the registry, Drop.com.au, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Google (mostly), Sedo etc etc

I mentioned cars before in my last post. Is Nissan.com a TM infringement?

Now, snoopy you dodge questions better than most but I'd really appreciate if you could YES/NO the below pls. You've answered the 1st, what about the others?

Do you think we should have not allowed the registrants of these domains to have listed them?
Do you think the registrars should not have allowed the registrants to register them?
Do you think if they were to drop, they should be withheld from any official or unofficial drop lists?
Do you think auDA should delete them immediately?

Note: have too much on for one of our marathon arguments so pls keep it to the point

 

[snoopy]

OK if it's so clearcut, why won't auDA delete it? They have the power to do so?

Well as I already stated I thought it is the type of name they would delete.

The answer is, of course, whether a trademark is being infringed is rarely black and white - it's usually one of a million shades of grey (some clearly darker than others!)

We are at the black level here.

Distinguishing between these greys is difficult so we choose not to. As do auDA, registrars, the registry, Drop.com.au, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Google (mostly), Sedo etc etc

Maybe it is worth not going out of your way to promote the "blacks" and telling subscribers they are great domains?

I mentioned cars before in my last post. Is Nissan.com a TM infringement?

How about this one,

xbox-microsoft-mcdonaldsfamilyrestaurants-facebook-applecomputers.com.au,

Is that name a TM infringement or is that a shade of grey that we are unsure about? Because some names are uncertain therefore Netfleet cannot make a decision on anything?

As I already said I'm not against people registering these names but it is an embarrassment for the industry to promote sales like this as though they are quality hand picked names.

At what point might Netfleet admit that this was an unwise decision instead of coming up with arguments about shades of grey and the need for judicial review?

Now, snoopy you dodge questions better than most but I'd really appreciate if you could YES/NO the below pls. You've answered the 1st, what about the others?

Do you think we should have not allowed the registrants of these domains to have listed them?
Do you think the registrars should not have allowed the registrants to register them?
Do you think if they were to drop, they should be withheld from any official or unofficial drop lists?
Do you think auDA should delete them immediately?

Note: have too much on for one of our marathon arguments so pls keep it to the point

Q.1 That is really up to you whether you wan to screen names or not.
Q.2 People can register what they like.
Q.3 People can register what they like.
Q.4 Personally I don't think AUDA should do anything about any name, what will they do is the question.

Here is another question:

Q.5 Should Netfleet have seemingly hand picked lists including obvious TM infringements sent out to their subscribers and labelled as great domain that will soon sell for 4 figures?

 

[FirstPageResults]

Changed the name of the email from 'Premium' to 'Sponsored'. Problem solved.

 

[Drop.com.au]

Hi everyone,

OK if it's so clearcut, why won't auDA delete it? They have the power to do so?

The answer is, of course, whether a trademark is being infringed is rarely black and white - it's usually one of a million shades of grey (some clearly darker than others!)

Distinguishing between these greys is difficult so we choose not to. As do auDA, registrars, the registry, Drop.com.au, Facebook, Twitter, Yahoo, Google (mostly), Sedo etc etc

Addressing the above statements -

We do actually make an effort not to promote questionable domain sales. We do not knowingly sell obvious trademarks in our Secondary Market Auctions or FabulousDomains.com and the Domain Distribution Network (DomainDistribution.com).

We do republish the auDA drop list in its entirety, along with respective metric data. The drop list frequently contains questionable domains, however we make a point of stating in any accompanying emails - "As always we recommend that you also take some time to determine whether your domains of interest infringe any third party intellectual property rights before bidding on them."

My colleague George points out that the .au space is a complaints driven policy framework, meaning, that auDA don't proactively police registrations but rather respond to complaints on a case by case basis, or when they conduct audits.

Thanks

Andrew

 

[DavidL]

Changed the name of the email from 'Premium' to 'Sponsored'. Problem solved.

Bingo! Thanks FPR!

PS have a look at Nissan.com for an interesting story. An example of how an 'obvious' black n white TM infringement isn't so....

 

[snoopy]

Bingo! Thanks FPR!

PS have a look at Nissan.com for an interesting story. An example of how an 'obvious' black n white TM infringement isn't so....

Nissan.com - Grey zone
Ebay.net.au - Black

 

[Timmy]

But my name is Edward Bay damnit!

 

[Shaun]

But my name is Edward Bay damnit!

And this is where it becomes grey...

 

[djuqa]

eBAY inc HAS a collection of Legal and Binding Australian trademarks for use with websites .
Whereas Nissan Motor didn't have a REGISTERED trademark that covered website usage.

Just one of ebay's trademarks

Class: 35 Advertising and promotion services and related consulting; preparation of custom or non-custom advertising for businesses for dissemination via the web; dissemination of advertising for others via a global communications network; online advertising services for others, namely, providing advertising space on Internet web sites; online trading services to facilitate the sale of goods and provision of services by others via a global communications network and providing evaluative feedback and ratings of sellers' goods and services, the value and prices of sellers' goods and services, buyers' and sellers' performance, delivery, and overall trading experience in connection therewith

Class: 38 Telecommunications services, namely, the electronic transmission of data and information; providing online communications links which transfer web site users to other local and global web pages

Class: 42 Providing customized online web pages featuring user-defined information, which includes search engines and online web links to other web sites; designing online web pages for advertising purposes

Even if your NAME was Mr ebay you still would not have the right to ebay.net.au

 

[DavidL]

Even if your NAME was Mr ebay you still would not have the right to ebay.net.au

Hmmm... you sure? I'm not.

I thought the underlying rule is no one has any more right to a domain name than anybody else? George - care to comment - you are the policy guru?

In fact having a look on auDA site:

http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2002-07/

2.3 There is no hierarchy of rights in the DNS. For example, a registered trade mark does not confer any better entitlement to a domain name than a registered business name. Domain name licences are allocated on a ‘first come, first served’ basis. Provided the relevant eligibility rules are satisfied, the first registrant to apply for a particular domain name will be permitted to license it.