Printer Friendly Version Print this thread
Email this thread to a friend eMail this thread to a friend
Related Forum Posts
Featured Web Site Template

Hundreds More at Free Site Templates.com!

Web Site Partners
Sponsored Links
Jet City Software
 
Whos Here ?
There are 0 guests and 1 members in the forums right now.
Reflects user activity within the last 5 minutes
Moderator(s): flyingrose, Curious_Mark
Member Message

excell
Moderator
Joined: Mar 19, 2001
# Posts: 14502

View the profile for excell Send excell a private message

Posted: 03/21/2005 02:25 am
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

Sinoed - it's far beyond me to understand all the legal technicalities but your links are interesting...
It seems to me that what is needed is some sort of overriding search and combat mission on behalf of the domain name regulators in concert with the appropriate tradmark authorities.

As you may or may not know, Australia is only new to a freer system for domain name registration.

I don't have time to post my thoughts fully but as far as I know even the most seasoned domain name acquirers steer well clear of encroaching on trade & brand names... I was going to post a few more links of relevance, but for now -here is one.

WIPO to Combat Cybersquatting



tezza23
Joined: Mar 17, 2005
# Posts: 15

View the profile for tezza23 Send tezza23 a private message

Posted: 03/21/2005 02:29 am
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

[link]

this may help explain a little further.







Sinoed
Moderator
Joined: Dec 11, 2000
# Posts: 5266

View the profile for Sinoed Send Sinoed a private message

Posted: 03/21/2005 10:09 am
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

Those links are very informative. In the first link I found that decisions tend to lean overwhelmingly towards the complainant and in the second I found this:

Trademarks exist in Australia subject to the Trade Marks Act[53] or the common law, subject to the "passing off" right of action[54] A trademark is typically infringed when a person 'uses as a trademark' a sign that is substantially identical or deceptively similar to the trademark.[55] It is the concept of 'uses as a trademark' that is most important regarding domain names. Passing off actions though are usually made in addition with s52 of the TPA[56] which has numerous advantages, such as eliminating the necessity to prove that customers have been misled. However, the conduct must take place in 'trade or commerce'. Fair trading legislation extends the remedies available through litigation further, because it avoids the difficulty of registering a generic name under trademark law.[57]



Infringement of a trademark will occur if the goods or services displayed on the alleged domain name address are of the same description.[59] Infringement is also possible if the domain name holder displayed "closely-related" goods or services, though a defence exists if it can be proven that the sign would not likely deceive or cause confusion.[60]


To me, these kind of facts point to the argument that Ansearch really does not have a case. It could be very easily proven (as in the Teoma case) that they are cybersquatting on the domain names they've purchased. What I find really fascinating though was the end part of the UDRP:
To date, Australia has had no case law that considers whether registration or use of a domain name constitutes trademark infringement or passing off.

&

Whilst the cases of other jurisdictions provide useful guidance to Australian courts, the lack of case law in Australia makes the litigious path a precarious one. The UDRP on the other hand, having resolved many disputes in this area, is definitely a useful method of settling such disagreements.


The reason I find it so fascinating is because it seems to me that Ansearch is using the lack of case law to skirt the domain resolution issue. So because there isn't a whole lot of precendent on cybersquatting in Australia - it is "ok". Am I interpreting this right?



tezza23
Joined: Mar 17, 2005
# Posts: 15

View the profile for tezza23 Send tezza23 a private message

Posted: 03/21/2005 12:18 pm
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

This discussion really has to do with whether or not it is right or wrong to use any domain name unrelated to a website to direct traffic.

I still am wondering why we are talking about whether or not the company have any right to the domain names in question.

The article I posted previously and Sineod's comments suggest that they actually do and can use these names.

But is it right to redirect domains to a website?

excell seems to think it is?





tezza23
Joined: Mar 17, 2005
# Posts: 15

View the profile for tezza23 Send tezza23 a private message

Posted: 03/21/2005 12:25 pm
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

Excell,

you continually divert from answering simple questions.

Your refusal to answer any questions is somewhat bizarre, especially when they are all simple.

you refuse to discuss the topic in detail, but you continue to ramble on about things which are of common practice in Australia and overseas. Please don't try and tell me they are not.

You made this thread about Beware AU.

The facts are really simple:

1. Many companies own domain names as a means of marketing
2. There are laws that do allow challenges to domain names if and only if there is reason
3. M*C*osoft's IE owns 95% of all web users, hence every single unregistered, misspelt and unavailable domain name.

I have examples of redirects everywhere. Maybe I should post them just like you have Excell?



unreviewed
Joined: Dec 07, 2000
# Posts: 6776

View the profile for unreviewed Send unreviewed a private message

Posted: 03/21/2005 01:53 pm
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

tezza23, if you have, in any way, what you may feel is negative information about Excell’s Internet activities, then post it, or quit pretending you do.

Rather than attacking, I suggest that you simply give your opinion of the SEO strategy presented in this thread, and leave it at that. That way, we can have a good discussion, and hopefully learn something along the way.

Make sense to you?


[Edited typo, word "activities"]

[ Message was edited by: unreviewed 03/21/2005 06:14 pm ]





excell
Moderator
Joined: Mar 19, 2001
# Posts: 14502

View the profile for excell Send excell a private message

Posted: 03/21/2005 02:07 pm
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

Well - I really do think there are folks out there that are interested in what's up here. Read the latest article by AustraliaIT.
Searcher Twists Name Rules

Searcher twists name rules
Simon Hayes
MARCH 22, 2005
WOULD-BE search king Ansearch has ruffled a few feathers among Australia's top corporate brands by registering misspellings of well-known internet domain names in an attempt to drive traffic to the search engine.
....
Picking up foxsport.com.au has put Ansearch offside with News Limited, publisher of The Australian.

"This is a blatant attempt to exploit our brands and to siphon traffic that is clearly intended for our sites, and as such we take this very seriously," said Nic Jones, managing director of News Interactive.

"We have invested a great deal in these brands, and we will protect that investment.

"Ansearch can rest assured that we will be exploring all avenues open to us to resolve this issue."

News Interactive is the digital division of News Limited.

A spokesman for Motorola said Ansearch's registration of motorolla.com. au would be examined by the company's regional legal team.

"This has happened a number of times, and it's of deep concern to us," he said.

"It is misleading. We send these cases to our legal people, and they act."

The ABC said it had not received any complaints about Ansearch's registration of abcnews.com.au, abcradio .com.au and abc rural.com.au, but courts generally supported the rights of trademark owners.

"People have tried this in the past, and we have never reached the point where we had to go to court," he said.

"I'm surprised anyone is even trying this."

Microsoft said it reserved the right to protect its names.

"The registration in itself doesn't give any company or organisation any proprietary right in the trading names," said a spokeswoman.

"Like all organisations, we have rights under the law, which we can choose to exercise if there has been a breach of those rights."

Ansearch's Mr Jones said trademark holders "don't realise how much they're losing" by not registering misspellings and plurals of their brands.




excell
Moderator
Joined: Mar 19, 2001
# Posts: 14502

View the profile for excell Send excell a private message

Posted: 03/21/2005 02:34 pm
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

Nobody has any doubt that one tactic of driving traffic is the registration of misspelled & popular names as well as generic keywords. Most self respecting cybersquatters & typosquatters however, steer well clear of brands.

Ansearch is seeking to gain "credibility" as an alternative Australian search engine within the AU marketplace...I think they may have made a mistake in exploiting the ability to register so many brands.

I may "ramble on about things which are of common practice in Australia and overseas" but the difference here is that we are talking about a Search Engine (wannabe)

The facts are really simple:

1. Many companies own domain names as a means of marketing
2. There are laws that do allow challenges to domain names if and only if there is reason
3. M*C*osoft's IE owns 95% of all web users, hence every single unregistered, misspelt and unavailable domain name.

I have examples of redirects everywhere. Maybe I should post them just like you have Excell?


1 & 2 I agree.
3. I disagree - IE defaults to a search facility with some helpful suggestions for "did you mean" domains. It does not register domains to drive traffic to their search engine neither does it put any advertising on their default page.
Users can opt in or out of this auto search. Personally I have my browser set to redirect to google. Google does not register domain names to drive traffic to their website neither do they allow advertising on their default "auto search" page.

It is pointless to post about any other redirecting domains as this thread is about ansearch. You could open another thread or view existing threads if you have an interest in the practice of driving traffic via domains in general.






excell
Moderator
Joined: Mar 19, 2001
# Posts: 14502

View the profile for excell Send excell a private message

Posted: 03/23/2005 01:09 am
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

This whole thing gets sicker & sicker.
It's a crying shame when two of ansearch's key director/partners were involved with marketing/consultation/development for some of the very top Australian companies & government departments they are now taking traffic from. It makes the following quote look very off.
Ansearch's Mr Jones said trademark holders "don't realise how much they're losing" by not registering misspellings and plurals of their brands.
So, why didn't they tell them?
Ansearch's registrations directed traffic back to the genuine site, he said.

"It has been of benefit to our users. When they go to these pages now they just click on a result that takes them to what they were looking for," he said.
This is not true unless the key words are set up correctly and the correct domain that has been ripped off is prominent. I've asked a few folks around about about their experiences, and once I show them ansearch and explain how they got there they express nothing but extreme annoyance about it and their recollections of encounters.

---
do these deliver you speedily to your intended destination?

dmoz.com.au
mysimon.com.au

adding - does foxsport.com.au take you anywhere near the intention?


[ Message was edited by: excell 03/23/2005 01:42 am ]





Sinoed
Moderator
Joined: Dec 11, 2000
# Posts: 5266

View the profile for Sinoed Send Sinoed a private message

Posted: 03/23/2005 07:18 am
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

I know this probably isn't the right word but its almost like corporate internet espionage. You know, using the info you gain through consultation to your own advantage. That is morally & ethically wrong!



Sinoed
Moderator
Joined: Dec 11, 2000
# Posts: 5266

View the profile for Sinoed Send Sinoed a private message

Posted: 03/23/2005 10:50 pm
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

Tezza, I don't think the argument is with Excell, the real issue is whether it is appropriate or not to funnel traffic by taking advantage of well known brands. As you've pointed out there are ways 'around' the issue, people have even managed to manipulate Google by feeding the bot but that really isn't the point. Personally if I spent tons of money building and marketing my brand I'd be very upset if someone was taking advantage of my hard work so I can understand the Australian position. The second point to consider is the fact that this isn't someone's mom & pop website, it is a growing search service in the public sphere. I think that at the very least better business practices would necessitate setting a 'leading' example rather than the deception that they've managed to construct. What makes this infinitely worse is that Ansearch is a publicly traded company (Optum Limited (ASX: OPM)) with new advertising deals in place with companies such as Overture. They have a legal responsibility to accurately interact & disclose information with their shareholders and I can't see how sitting on some of these trademarks is fulfilling that part of the bargain.

I also think many people would be less offended with their practices if they were common misspellings of keywords or high traffic words but they haven't done that. As a matter of fact, nearly all of the domains that Ansearch has bought are misspellings of company names and well known brands. If you had a website using domain names with a variety of keywords to direct traffic I doubt very much that people would think twice about it.

I really don't think it matters what sector you're in, copyright infringement is taken very seriously and its not just in business. In university, plagarism results in the very least a zero on the assignment with possible expulsion from school. These kind of ideas extend to public & high schools, so it is understandable that society views copyright infringement as fundamentally wrong. Personally, I am ok with using misspellings of keywords & domains to redirect traffic and as a matter of fact have come to expect it but I'm not ok with anything that interferes with the copyright of anyone. As someone who has had this happen to me, I find it very upsetting to have someone else take credit for your hard work and essentially, this is exactly what Ansearch is doing.

I'm not sure exactly what you're trying to say, since you seem to be focused on the fact that Excell has brought this up, but I don't think you'll find much support for your position if you're supporting things like copyright infringement & trademark issues. The fact that it 'can' be done is already well established, please correct me if I'm wrong but you seem to be saying that you think it is "OK" to take advantage of someone else's brand even if it means infringing on their copyright?

On a related note, why do I keep hearing about MySearch & AnSearch at the same time? Are they related at all..?



whodunit
Joined: Mar 23, 2005
# Posts: 3

View the profile for whodunit Send whodunit a private message

Posted: 03/23/2005 11:08 pm
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

Tezza23
Are you defending their tactic? Do you honestly feel it is okay for an entity - individual or business - to register domain names that are misleadingly similar to well known trademarks, service marks, company names and celebrities names, for the apparent sole purpose of cashing in on accidental traffic?

My take on Excell's activity is simply that he/she has stumbled across a questionable situation and is merely raising the alarm in the interests of making the Internet a better, cleaner, more level playing field for ALL players and I applaud him/her for this.

From my POV (and, I suspect, Excell's), a desirable end result of Excell raising the alarm is that organisations and individuals affected will become aware of the problem and thus be empowered to take effective and appropriate action. Such action, through the legal system will hopefully then close off some exploitable loopholes.

I certainly feel that AUDA, being the Australian regulatory body for domain allocation and registration, needs to be made aware of the situation - which I feel is a blatant abuse of the system - so that it can take effective action to close off any regulatory loopholes and redress the existing situation that Excell has brought to light.

[ Message was edited by: JimBot 03/26/2005 10:30 pm ... Reason: Edited for relevancy. ]





excell
Moderator
Joined: Mar 19, 2001
# Posts: 14502

View the profile for excell Send excell a private message

Posted: 03/23/2005 11:23 pm
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

On a related note, why do I keep hearing about MySearch & AnSearch at the same time? Are they related at all..?

To answer you question, here is a quote from the publicly accessible report to the asx from Optum dated October 28, 2004.
In June 2004 Ansearch acquired MySearch.com.au to use as a test bed to trial its technologies and programmes to measure their performance....
However, Ansearch’s senior management are keen to stress that MySearch.com.au is but a small taste of what the new search engine will offer and in its current form does not appear to be much different to competing search engines.

Most of the testing to date has focused on usability and online marketing techniques, with new search technology only deployed for limited periods.
Ansearch’s new search engine will have a much different look and feel. Jones and London are confident that rolling new search and online marketing technologies into the new Ansearch search engine will enable them to attract a minimum of half a million unique visitors a month to the new site within six month of its official launch in November.





Sinoed
Moderator
Joined: Dec 11, 2000
# Posts: 5266

View the profile for Sinoed Send Sinoed a private message

Posted: 03/24/2005 01:47 pm
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

You know, as far as I am aware throughout this whole thread excell hasn't said anything about trademark issues at all. As a matter of fact, I am the one that brought it up as a point of interest and what ensued was a discussion of the legalities. Further, I don't see where any private or personal information has been posted. The information that is in this thread is easily accessible to anyone with access to the internet. An infringement of privacy/copyright laws would necessitate sharing information that is otherwise unaccessible. I can't explain your reasons or method but it appears that you are baiting excell.



excell
Moderator
Joined: Mar 19, 2001
# Posts: 14502

View the profile for excell Send excell a private message

Posted: 03/24/2005 02:19 pm
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

Somebody has selective hearing it seems.
tezza - um, I find it absolutely ludicrous that you seek to imply that I have a competitive interest in this matter. Think about it - if I did, why the heck would I have promoted Ansearch here, on these forums, as an up-and-coming Australian Search Engine to watch?

Please remember - these are search engine forums where we discuss search engine matters.. Consider - if google/yahoo/overture/name of other search related company/ even fart they have to stand up to public scrutiny.

Ansearch seeks to be a david to the goliath of existing search engines - wants to stand up in the AU search engine space - next to the likes of sensis / webwombat etc.

Um, as part of the interent / webmaster community I have a responsibility & a right to speak and to question matters when I find things that could be of interest / danger / negative affect as well as positive & helpful things.


About this forum: Non U.S. Search Engines
This forum is reserved for discussing the various search engines and directories that serve the world-wide population.

Apart from the issue of cybersquatting & typosquatting in general and the legalities of domain name registration, Ansearch is being discussed here and in other places as a new Australian Search Engine seeking acceptance within the SE & Internet advertising community.

There are many issues involved that have not been answered - here are a few of them.

1) The issue of registering & redirecting the names or typos of other more established search engines & directories.
findology.com.au
dmoz.com.au
foogle.com.au
froogles.com.au
genieknows.com.au
giigle.com.au/
goclick.com.au
goggles.com.au
goofle.com.au/
goog.com.au/
googlee.com.au
googles.com.au
googlr.com.au
kanoodle.com.au
msnsearch.com.au
ninensn.com.au
search66.com.au
searchalot.com.au
teoma.com.au
yahho.com.au/
yahoomessenger.com.au/
yahooo.com.au
yahoosearch.com.au
yahou.com.au/

Regardless of if some of these (and there are most likely many more) are now redirecting to the name holder, if any other search engine did this, I would say their legitimacy would be questioned by the SE community.

2)The question of caching using websites titles, content, images, links and meta data and presenting it as new, unique & indexable URL.

3) The question of using 302 redirectors and cluttering up the main stream search engine results with listings that all lead to the 1 (or more) domains.

4) The question of using names or brands to draw traffic with no quick way to reach the recognised owners websites(in many cases).

5) The question of the usefulness and functionality of Ansearch as a viable engine for users.

6) The question of the traffic reporting to the asx and if it includes traffic from questionable sources. Example - do the duplicate directories sofweb.com.au, onvic.com.au & qbfm.com.au count? How about the adult directory mentioned elsewhere? (I don't know if that would be important, but it could be to some.)

If these and other questions are not a suitable topic of discussion in this forum then I am sure the administrators will deal with it.

I have repeatedly stated that if I am wrong in my thinking that there is anything wrong here then somebody needs to correct me. smile

[ Message was edited by: excell 03/24/2005 05:16 pm ]





whodunit
Joined: Mar 23, 2005
# Posts: 3

View the profile for whodunit Send whodunit a private message

Posted: 03/24/2005 10:28 pm
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

Tezza23,
Whether or not Excell (or anyone else participating or lurking in this thread) is associated with anybody is totally irrelevant to the topic at hand, which is a "heads-up" to the Internet search community at large that something questionable is occurring.

I don't believe that anyone in this thread has come straight out and said that any of the domain names in question breach copyright. But I think most here would agree with the assessment that many of the domain names registered by the entity in question are intentionally and extremely misleadingly similar to trade and service marks, company names and celebrity names. This may not be precisely illegal at this point in time but it certainly skates a very thin line. In fact, I believe copyright law may contain a proviso about misleadingly similar names.

But it is my considered opinion the entity in question certainly possesses no moral right to many, if not most of the names.

This is a public forum dealing with search engines across the Internet and as such the participants have a perfect right, in fact a responsibility, to discuss the pros and cons of search engines and the algorithms, techniques and tactics being used by them.

The danger inherent in this form of abuse by a search engine, is the message it gives to Internet marketers that the tactic is now considered acceptable - in spite of the consequent inevitable degradation of search results. The end result will be that everybody loses out - the search engines because they lose popularity through less relevant results and more cluttered with irrelevant or worthless links, the legitimate website owners because their sites become harder to find through all the noise and clutter and the end user whose Internet experience is degraded.

The purchase and use of domain names similar to existing search engines and directories comes across to me as straight out deceptive marketing. In my opinion, the only way this sort of practice could be considered defensible would be if the owner of the domain pointed it at the correct search engine, perhaps with a timed redirect warning that the original URL was incorrect.

Caching of content of an existing website and presenting it as new and unique content under a different URL is imho a direct assault on the marketing of the original website. With duplicate content being indexed, the original website will be reduced in prominence. In some search engines it may also be penalised.

[ Message was edited by: JimBot 03/26/2005 10:36 pm ... Reason: Edited for relevance. ]





excell
Moderator
Joined: Mar 19, 2001
# Posts: 14502

View the profile for excell Send excell a private message

Posted: 03/25/2005 05:09 am
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

I cannot remember if anyone has posted a link to this article or not - so here you go:
Australian Search Engine in Dodgy Domain Reg Scandal



excell
Moderator
Joined: Mar 19, 2001
# Posts: 14502

View the profile for excell Send excell a private message

Posted: 03/26/2005 12:23 am
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

gawd blimey mate - webwombats.com.au <---
one for the aussies amongst us.
{excell about pukes at that}



whodunit
Joined: Mar 23, 2005
# Posts: 3

View the profile for whodunit Send whodunit a private message

Posted: 03/26/2005 12:45 am
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

webwombats.com.au sad
Web Wombat too?????? huh
SACRILEGE !!! eek

The Wombat is one of the original search engines. And Australian, to boot! It's been quietly wombling away since the nineties and has earned a place in the hearts of most old-time Australian netizens.

How DARE Ansearch try to steal the name of this Australian Internet icon webwombat.com.au .rolleyeys

Right! This has gone way past a joke now. This means WAR! laugh



excell
Moderator
Joined: Mar 19, 2001
# Posts: 14502

View the profile for excell Send excell a private message

Posted: 03/26/2005 01:28 am
Edit Message Delete Message Reply to this message

I suppose the answer from Ansearch would be to point out how silly the longtime Australian search engine webwombat is for not protecting their brand by registering the plural... question is - what sort of goodwill and popularity does this sort of behaviour create for ansearch within the AU web space?

Don't give me popularity via Hitwise results! Look at where traffic is coming from and how popular a property is in reality.


You are not permitted to post messages in this forum or topic, because of one or more of the following reasons:
  1. You have not yet logged in, or registered properly as a member
  2. You are a member, but no longer have posting rights.
  3. This is a private forum, for which you do not have permissions.

If you are a recent member, it's possible that you simply have not yet confirmed your account. Please check your email for a message entitled 'JimWorld Forums: Confirm Your Account' and follow the instructions contained within.

If you cannot find this message, click here to Re-Send it.

If you are still experiencing problem, please read the Login Assistance Article for some advice on what may be causing your login not to work properly.

Switch to Advanced Editor and ... Create a New Topic or Reply to this Thread

New posts Forum is locked
© 1995  ·  iWeb, Inc  ·  DBA JimWorld Productions