Here are today’s snippets about the domain name industry (and other stuff) that I hope you find interesting.
Kogan Acquires Dick Smith’s I.P
According to a report in The Age this morning, Kogan has acquired Dick Smith’s intellectual property for an undisclosed price after a two-month auction by the receivers and managers (Ferrier Hodgson).
“The acquisition includes the Dick Smith brand and trademarks, the online business in Australia and New Zealand, customer and loyalty databases, websites and domain names.”
Kogan will take over the running of the online business from 1 June 2016. All Dick Smith customers will be contacted with the option of having their details removed prior to the transfer to new owners.
Interesting times ahead.
What’s Happening On The Drops
A major portfolio holder “dropped” a huge amount of domain names yesterday. I reached out to a representative of the registrant, and he tells me that a decision has been made to quit the majority of their inventory. Having said that, they will be retaining a number of higher quality domains.
Despite this, there were only 20 contested domains on Netfleet – they won 17 / lost 3.
Highlight of the day was a 2 letter domain – zc.com.au for $1789 +/+ (bid on Drop was $1290). Only 4 other domains just cracked the $100 mark.
Given the major portfolio being “dropped”, I imagine their were a lot of $1 bids on Drop. I know this to be a fact because I picked up 12 one-word brandables for this amount (that weren’t contested on NF). I wouldn’t have been Robinson Crusoe! My guess is that Domain Shield would have also had many $25 bids as well.
Why Do Some People Bid Early?
Of the three dropcatchers in our local market, Drop.com.au is the only transparent platform where you can see who’s bidding on what ($1 bids are hidden, but as soon as someone else bids on the domain, bids get shown). There is “sudden death” at the end of the auction when a lot of the serious players get their bids in. Some people refer to this as “sniping”.
I understand that if you’re participating on Drop.com.au you have to make some sort of bid before the 5 minute “end of auction” window. If you bid $1, no one else sees it anyway. Should there already be other bids, all you need to do is bid $1 above the highest bid to be in the contest.
So it never ceases to amaze me why some people bid early on Drop.com.au. In terms of bidding strategy, why telegraph your punches? All that does is alert people like me to a popular domain, and we can adjust our last minute bids accordingly (both on Drop and other platforms).
Of course there is the “trophy domain bidding syndrome”. This is when there is a high value domain up for grabs. Some people get bids in early on these (and sometimes go reasonably high from their normal habits / budget) because they know they will never win it. But it’s nice to be able to say “I bailed at $1k / $3k / $5k or whatever”. It makes them a player. 😉
The final factor that worries me is the potential for shill bidding. I’ve written about this previously. There was a short period of time previously where “some people” were purposely placing fixed bids on Drop.com.au in order to highlight the domain. People would then make bigger than normal bids on an alternate platform. Fortunately this was stamped out at the time.
As always, this is just my considered opinion. I may well be wrong.
Another Interesting Domain Dispute
This recent WIPO case is an intriguing one.
UK company reluctantly agrees to purchase domain name from an Aussie registrant because they decided that a negotiated deal was better than a legal stoush. Fair enough.
But then the Aussie doesn’t hand over domain. UK company rightly claims foul, and decides to go the UDRP route to get the domain back.
UK company wins. Aussie’s conduct helped seal the deal. See below (bolding is mine).
C. Registered or Subsequently Used in Bad Faith
The Policy requires that the Complainant demonstrate that the disputed domain name has either been registered or used in bad faith.
In this case the Respondent has acknowledged that it has an agreement (via an associated company) to transfer the disputed domain name but says that it has never refused to transfer the disputed domain name or threatened to refuse to transfer the disputed domain name. It has, however, refused to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant in spite of the latter’s many attempts to request transfer and the payment of a substantial invoice by the Complainant for the Respondent’s supposed ongoing renewal and redirection costs. It appears to the Panel that the Respondent has subsequently contrived excuses and reasons not to transfer the disputed domain name in terms of the agreement. It has done so for its own ends, whatever they may be and on repeated occasions. This is not legitimate or acceptable commercial behaviour and parties in these circumstances cannot just impose conditions upon conditions before choosing to comply with their admitted contractual obligations, i.e., it is not good faith use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent for the purposes of the Policy. In the Panel’s view, this sort of conduct amounts to a form of cybersquatting in bad faith and as a result the Panel finds that the Complaint also succeeds under the third element of the Policy.
Website Of The Day
I have a great interest in real estate – particularly in regards to cyber & digital marketing.
Saw this great article written by Matthew Bushery from PLACESTER:
But that’s not all. Check out the huge number of resources at their Real Estate Marketing Academy. Fabulous imho!
Motivational Quote Of The Day
“Keep away from people who try to belittle your ambition. Small people always do that, but the really great make you feel that you, too, can become great.” – Mark Twain
If you have any comments on any of the above, as always I’d love to hear them.
And please feel free to hit the buttons below and share with your friends and colleagues!