geodomains
Top Contributor
Why would anyone be bidding on Nike.com.au, already up to $100, asking for trouble?
nike.com.au dropping
- Thread starter geodomains
- Start date
neddy
Top Contributor
johno69
Top Contributor
Unless it is Nike.
must be 2 bidders.
acheeva
Top Contributor
As Nike's solicitors would say "Just Do It"
djuqa
Top Contributor
Yes , you would need a good pair of Runners to escape them.
On a more serious note:- Explain to me (& others) exactly why registrars and AUsregistry can't implement procedures to prevent repeated "Register - Policy Delete " cycles.
If it is a conspiracy to rip repeated registration fees from suckers - than that is FRAUD "Obtaining money by deception"
Last edited:
acheeva
Top Contributor
Tim's explanation above of the possibility of a legitimate registration could be part of the answer
Utube is similar; a pipe bender could readily register that name & claim the domain (imo)
AnthonyP
Top Contributor
I used to be of the strong opinion that it should be blocked at ausRegistry (to make it easier for all Registrars and Registrants) but as time passes I am starting to understand that the auDA policies are designed to be implemented by humans because there are as many exceptions to the rules as there are rules. Each deletion is dealt with by a human at auDA. To try to mimic this behaviour at the software level is costly and prone to errors.
Good grief!
payattention
Archived Member
We need less rules (preferably none) and procedures, not more. The registrars and auction sites have no business policing what can and cannot be registered. I have a better idea - people take personal responsibility for what they register. If this means some people blow $$$ here and there, so be it.
findtim
Top Contributor
you contradict yourself "The registrars and auction sites have no business policing what can and cannot be registered" , to my knowledge they don't ! its the AUDA that does.
did you not read the previous posts? utube CAN be registered without fail by the CORRECT business.
trademark will always cut in to direct names like nike, but in my opinion if nike wanted to register nike.com.au then they bloody well should have a long time ago and if i owned a shoe shop in 2012 and SOLD nike's then nike have NO claim to that domain name, so yes i'm now back on your side Jonathan but the first needed to be stated.
Can the people in DNT who know more about this process then me please start a thread on this domain, i would REALLY love to know the process that is about to happen, reg, transfer, pd, back into the system, dates, and back onto netfleet.
if someone could take on the challenge to detail this i think it would be grand for all of us....... or has it already been done and you can post a link?
tim
payattention
Archived Member
I think it's pretty clear what I said was in response to djuqa suggesting they should do those things.
Cooper Mills DomainLawyer
Top Contributor
Tim is right, neither auDA or Ausregistry should be blocking these domains from being registered, otherwise where do you draw the line, who gets exclusive use of a domain name, the big corporates or small businesses. There are often multiple parties that are eligible to register a domain, I have seen many cases where a client has picked up a PD and when audited was able to prove an entitlement under Policy.
johno69
Top Contributor
findtim
Top Contributor
Orange: all good examples but its even simpler then that.
the reality is Nike Corp have had time to make their move and they haven't.
SO if i am a shoe shop and i have nike.com.au and on the website i ONLY promote NIKE products then why on earth should i be potentially up for a court case???? jeezzzz, i'm selling their product which i am buying from them!
lucky me lucky them.
as i understand copyright law ( not trademark law) if you advertise online that you sell a brand and use a brands image and ACTUALLY do sell the brand then you have no worries, its when you advertise using a brands image but do not sell the brand that you then have an issue.
[ tell me if i am wrong]
as i said before PLEASE can we follow this domain and see how it pans out
tim
the reality is Nike Corp have had time to make their move and they haven't.
SO if i am a shoe shop and i have nike.com.au and on the website i ONLY promote NIKE products then why on earth should i be potentially up for a court case???? jeezzzz, i'm selling their product which i am buying from them!
lucky me lucky them.
as i understand copyright law ( not trademark law) if you advertise online that you sell a brand and use a brands image and ACTUALLY do sell the brand then you have no worries, its when you advertise using a brands image but do not sell the brand that you then have an issue.
[ tell me if i am wrong]
as i said before PLEASE can we follow this domain and see how it pans out
tim
Yeah that could be a legitimate argument eg http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=DAU2011-0024
Mark
Top Contributor
It expired "naturally" and was never a pendingDelete, Nike registered it via our platform, and it now redirects to Nike.com. I'm pretty sure Nike actually owned it beforehand too.
Community sponsors
Members online
No members online now.
