Dynadot

Typo Monetization with Brand Approval

Spaceship Spaceship
Watch

Kuntal

Established Member
Impact
13
This thread is to discuss the typo monetization opportunity directly with the brand.

Siteplug is contracted by over 1000 brands globally to monetize their typos. The traffic is redirected to the respective brand page and the domainer is paid a flat redirection fee. Our redirection process never reveals your typo domain name to the brand.


REVISED_NamePros-MAILER-.jpg

This is a paid post.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
3
•••
The views expressed on this page by users and staff are their own, not those of NamePros.
interesting topic. I'm watching, any examples of names you use or money to made
 
0
•••
Hey Masterofmydomains,

Thanks for your response.
 
0
•••
0
•••
0
•••
Congrats on great idea, @Kuntal

I am being curious, why brands do not file UDPR for those domains, instead of paying them for traffic?
 
2
•••
Congrats on great idea, @Kuntal

I am being curious, why brands do not file UDPR for those domains, instead of paying them for traffic?

I don't think the domain owner is protected from a udpr. Remember that in the OP it was mentioned that the domain is hidden from the brand owner.
 
0
•••
I wouldn't touch these services with a 10ft pole. I could even argue they are misleading and deceitful. They give you no protection whatsoever; in fact, if there's any protection, it's for them with respect to brand owners, domainers are still exposed to UDRPs and lawsuits.
 
3
•••
I wouldn't touch these services with a 10ft pole. I could even argue they are misleading and deceitful. They give you no protection whatsoever; in fact, if there's any protection, it's for them with respect to brand owners, domainers are still exposed to UDRPs and lawsuits.
👌
 
0
•••
A popular brand would have hundreds of typos and filing UDRP for hundreds of name costs thousands of dollars plus several headaches. We speak to CMO's of major global brands and most of them would agree that their ultimate objective is to not lose the users to the competition. We are doing exactly that at Siteplug. Redirecting the user to the original web page. But you always have some brands that are litigious in nature.

I would not claim that we can prevent a UDRP filing 100% of the times, but we have in a few cases. However, we do not reveal the typo to the brand so if a brand decides to file a UDRP it's not because of us. Don't forget that you are still susceptible to UDRP if your typo is parked / unmonetized. Unless you have a way to prove that it's not a typo of the said brand. When you buy a typo one should be fully aware of what one is getting into.
 
6
•••
A popular brand would have hundreds of typos and filing UDRP for hundreds of name costs thousands of dollars plus several headaches. We speak to CMO's of major global brands and most of them would agree that their ultimate objective is to not lose the users to the competition. We are doing exactly that at Siteplug. Redirecting the user to the original web page. But you always have some brands that are litigious in nature.

I would not claim that we can prevent a UDRP filing 100% of the times, but we have in a few cases. However, we do not reveal the typo to the brand so if a brand decides to file a UDRP it's not because of us. Don't forget that you are still susceptible to UDRP if your typo is parked / unmonetized. Unless you have a way to prove that it's not a typo of the said brand. When you buy a typo one should be fully aware of what one is getting into.

Well said. The risk is always there.
 
2
•••
0
•••
Brand insurance organization CitizenHawk has been allowed a patent that comprehensively error area names for the benefit of customers and after that adapting them. for the space can be refreshed to reflect Aeropostale-endorsed information.
 
0
•••
Had anybody parked with them and tested?
 
0
•••
NET 60 seems too long for just typo monetization.
 
1
•••
I have noticed fivver//com being redirected to fiverr using sitePlug , A big typo traffic name indeed.
 
0
•••
0
•••
0
•••
Scam


https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/text/2020/dco2020-0020.html

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent is using the Domain Name without a license or authorization from the Complainant. The Complainant asserts that before filing of the Complaint, the Respondent had not used or made any demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection to a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant contends that the Domain Name resolves to several redirections: “ww2.siteplug.com”, a malicious link, while the host of “www.siteplug.com” seems legitimate. The Complainant argues that the Respondent is using the feature of the “www.siteplug.com”, which can redirect users to a brand’s corporate site when users make domain typos, in this case typing “carrefur” instead of “carrefour”. The Complainant contends that the Domain Name also points to either a malicious website potentially containing malware, or to the official site of the Complainant at the domain name <carefour.fr>. The above use of the Domain Name does not constitute a bona fide use.

https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2019-0667

The Panel notes that, after typing the address composed of the disputed domain name, the disputed domain name redirects to the official website “www.groupon.com” by using the redirection tool “www.siteplug.com”.

The Panel noticed that the URL of the page to which the disputed domain name redirects includes the term “redirect” twice.

The Complainant explains that this redirection enables the Respondent to earn a commission, as affiliates do.

The official affiliates are bound by an agreement forbidding use of the term “GROUPON” in a trademark, a domain name, an email address or anything else, which means that the Respondent cannot rely on a potential affiliate status to justify its decision to register the disputed domain name and to use it as it does.


https://udrp.adr.eu/decisions/detail?id=62fac90ebfe30f8f4e0cdef6

The Complainant did not grant any license or authorization to register or use the disputed domain name by the Respondent. The Respondent uses the disputed domain name to redirect internet users to the Complainant's website and the Respondent is thus benefiting financially from and unlawfully trading upon the renown associated with the Complainant's trademarks and name, because the value of the domain name depends mainly on its traffic. The redirection of internet traffic to the Complainant's official website occurs with the help of Siteplug under Sitedirect which is a software/redirect technology that identifies Internet user typing errors in domain names and corrects them and thus redirects consumers to the intended website. It has been established that redirecting to the Complainant's official website is not a use of a domain name in connection with any bona fide offer of goods or services in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy and thus the Respondent cannot be viewed as making any legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain name in accordance with para 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.
 
Last edited:
1
•••
Back