Help! Charitable Cyber Squatting

[netfleet]

I have held this domain name www.realesate.com.au for about 18 months.

Today I get a letter from the authorities saying it has been brought to their attention that the domain name is a misspelling of a company or brand name and will be deleted unless I can show that it falls outside of this policy:

http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2006-05/

The hard argument would be that it is a typo of a generic word and just because a website appears at the 'real' spelling that shouldn't infer that we are profitting from the brand.

However in this instance, I think the easiest argument would be to state that we are not 'trading' by using this domain name. We can state, hand on heart that we have never made a cent from this domain, nor do we intend to do so. As such we can't be accused of trading on the other company's brand name. Is this a fair argument?

I have 7 days to respond before it gets deleted from under me...

Thanks for your feedback.

 

[gtycoon]

Make up something

Say you wanted domain for Real SAT e . But I guess there aren't SAT tests in that country.

Or make an abbreviation up for that term.

 

[verbster]

Wow, the auda policy is tough! Even more tough is that a company can claim the name "real estate" as a TM.

 

[netfleet]

Say you wanted domain for Real SAT e . But I guess there aren't SAT tests in that country.

Or make an abbreviation up for that term.

Hmmm - bit late for that really based on existing content of the site. I also don't think it should be necessary in this instance (or ethical either). But thanks for the idea!

Wow, the auda policy is tough! Even more tough is that a company can claim the name "real estate" as a TM.

They sure are! But despite that do you think I have a case here (based on the easy argument at least?)

 

[DNQuest.com]

Waht authoritites? is it the alleged TM holder? Was it the registrar? Was it some schmo would is trying to scare you into transferring the domain?

IT would seem to be a misspelling of a descriptive phrase. The mispeeling clause would be for the morons who register goooogle, yahoooo, walllmartt. (Yes, I did just call typosquatters morons )

 

[PowerUp]

I have held this domain name www.realesate.com.au for about 18 months.

Today I get a letter from the authorities saying it has been brought to their attention that the domain name is a misspelling of a company or brand name and will be deleted unless I can show that it falls outside of this policy:

http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2006-05/

The hard argument would be that it is a typo of a generic word and just because a website appears at the 'real' spelling that shouldn't infer that we are profitting from the brand.

However in this instance, I think the easiest argument would be to state that we are not 'trading' by using this domain name. We can state, hand on heart that we have never made a cent from this domain, nor do we intend to do so. As such we can't be accused of trading on the other company's brand name. Is this a fair argument?

I have 7 days to respond before it gets deleted from under me...

Thanks for your feedback.

What's the actual company or brand name in question? Maybe you should go trademark realesate and claim that the other company infringed on your trademark instead.

 

[Kate]

As a rule .au has never been a domainer-friendly TLD.
I'm even surprised they let you own the name for 18 months.

PS: your name is in the list of prohibited typos
http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/auda-misspellings-list.csv

 

[Spade]

My issue is this. A domain name which is a typo and generates you no revenue. You've held for 18months and its not developed. Why are you fighting this at all? Seems to me a no brainer. Now, i understand if you want to fight the establishment, thats one thing. But all things weighed, why are you fighting for a weak typo?

Justin

 

[labrocca]

My issue is this. A domain name which is a typo and generates you no revenue. You've held for 18months and its not developed. Why are you fighting this at all? Seems to me a no brainer. Now, i understand if you want to fight the establishment, thats one thing. But all things weighed, why are you fighting for a weak typo?

Justin

It's the point I guess for some people..sense has nothing to do with it.

 

[netfleet]

Thanks all for your responses.

DNQuest, the authorities are auDA - the guys who manage the whole .au domain space.

PowerUp, the brand name in question is actually "realestate.com.au". Rightly or wrongly they have an Australian TM on the term (see my link above)

My issue is this. A domain name which is a typo and generates you no revenue. You've held for 18months and its not developed. Why are you fighting this at all? Seems to me a no brainer. Now, i understand if you want to fight the establishment, thats one thing. But all things weighed, why are you fighting for a weak typo?

Hi Justin, Please have a look at the site and it should become obvious why I am doing it. And it's far from a weak typo - it gets some very good traffic.

It's the point I guess for some people..sense has nothing to do with it.

Thanks for your thoughful & contructive comments..... Judging by your posts elswhere I thought you may struggle with the concept of "charity", Labarocca

Anyway, back to the topic, I would very much appreciate anybody's opinion on whether I should successfully be able to defend this complaint within the existing rules.

 

[Spade]

But you said that in your first post, You "never made a cent from this domain". If your intent isn't to monetize it or develop, whats the point of keeping it ?

 

[Ronald Regging]

Ideally, it should be considered a typo of a generic term. However, I think the .au extension is extremely strict and you have to play by their rules. Supposedly you're allowed to sell .au domains, so they definitely aren't domainer friendly.

 

[netfleet]

But you said that in your first post, You "never made a cent from this domain". If your intent isn't to monetize it or develop, whats the point of keeping it ?

The charitable links down the bottom

If only 1% of those 10,000 u.vs a month clicks through to one of those charitable sites down the bottom, they get traffic. Then say 1% of those makes a donation, then the original site has done some good.

Multiple x 1,000 and we, as domainers, could make a real difference.

Another way of looking at it - take Google Adsense. If Google can't find a contextual ad to match, they (by default) put on a Public Service Ad. After all, they can't make money if there are no advertisers so they take the view, there are eyeballs on this virtual piece of real estate, we may as well 'put them to good use'. So they show not-for-profit ads.

This is exactly the same concept but with domains. We can't (and most people would say shouldn't from an ethical POV) make money on a typo domain and yet, there are millions and millions of people visiting these domains every day. These visits have value so why the hell not direct them towards some good causes.

If it costs me $20 p.a. to maintain a site like this but it results in a few thousands dollars in donations, plus exposure for the good causes, then I view oit as worthwhile.

What I'd really like to see is parking companies take this on board but that's another story.

Ideally, it should be considered a typo of a generic term. However, I think the .au extension is extremely strict and you have to play by their rules. Supposedly you're allowed to sell .au domains, so they definitely aren't domainer friendly

Sure, but what I weant to know is, playing by their rules to the letter, do I make a fair argument about 'trading' or not? Please, can someone try and answer the original question?

OOOPS - looks like since I first posted, they have deleted the domain (however I still have a few days to appeal and get it reinstated). Please view the cache to see what was published prior

http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cach...www.realesate.com.au&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=au

Or if that doesn't work, search for "realesate.com.au" in G and click the cache link under the top result.

Sorry - later viewers of this thread must have thought I was mad! Again, apologies!