Domain Thieves are attempting to hijack RottnestIsland.com.au

Last year the highly generic and geographic domain name RottnestIsland.com.au dropped in the public domain auctions and I managed to secure it for thousands of dollars, outbidding multiple bidders.

This morning auDA emailed to inform me they had “instructed the registrar of record to place the domain name into policy delete.”

I’m not sure who at auDA decided to accept this clearly vexatious complaint by domain thieves clearly attempting to hijack my domain name for free, but I have replied the following to auDA…

Good afternoon auDA Complaints Team,


Please ensure Steph Viljoen sees this vexatious complaint and acts promptly.


“Rottnest Island” is a GENERIC and GEOGRAPHIC SUBURB / LOCATION in Australia.

You can NOT trademark a suburb or geographic location in Australia.

The previous owners clearly no longer wanted their geographic-location domain name, thus why they allowed it to “drop” last year and be released to the open public to purchase in the auDA-endorsed and policed daily domain name public auctions.

I confirm that I paid THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS for this domain name in the fair and open public auction process.

Please immediately take my domain name OUT OF POLICY DELETE and inform the complainant they should immediately cease and desist from their vexatious domain thievery activity.

Since I’ve owned the domain name, it has not been for sale and it is still NOT FOR SALE.

You are correct when you mention I am parking the domain name for “monetisation” reasons, as I am allowed, according to auDA Policy.

I now dare the complainants to take the next step and file an auDRP against me, because if they do, they will lose and waste their money as countless other domainthieves.com.au have attempted against legitimate domain name owners before them.

This vexatious complaint is being publicly posted on Domainer.com.au so that future domain thieves understand it’s NOT OKAY to attempt to steal generic, geographic or acronym domain names.

I’ll wait to hear from you,

Robert Kaay

Story developing…

15 thoughts on “Domain Thieves are attempting to hijack RottnestIsland.com.au

  • Avatar
    February 12, 2020 at 1:23 pm
    Permalink

    That’s weird Robert, as I’ve never heard of a geographic name being policy deleted. Did they say why?

    Don

    Like
    4 people like this.
    • Avatar
      February 12, 2020 at 1:45 pm
      Permalink

      auDA never performed a “warranty check” and gave me NO WARNING that they were going to instruct the Registrar to “Policy Delete” the domain name.

      auDA should now perform an internal investigation to see which auDA staff member didn’t bother following their own policy…

      Like
      2 people like this.
  • Avatar
    February 12, 2020 at 1:47 pm
    Permalink

    Here is the full auDA Complaint I received today:


    Domain Name(s): rottnestisland.com.au

    .au Domain Administration Ltd (auDA) is the Australian Government-endorsed authority for the .au domain space. auDA is responsible for setting and enforcing the policy rules for .au domain names.

    auDA has received a formal complaint that you are not eligible to licence the above domain name(s). We note that the domain name may have been registered for the purpose of domain monetisation.

    Domain monetisation in explained in paragraph 3, Schedule C for com.au or paragraph 3, Schedule E for net.au of the Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules for the Open 2LDs (2012-04) (http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2012-04/).

    The above policy states that the domain name “the domain name must not be, or incorporate, an entity name, personal name or brand name in existence at the time the domain name was registered.”

    We note that the domain name is the same as, or incorporates an entity name, personal name or brand name in existence at the time the domain name was registered.

    In accordance with paragraph 5.3(b) of the Complaints Policy (2012-03) (http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2012-03/), we will now instruct the registrar of record to place the domain name into policy delete. The domain name will now be in a “pending delete” state for 14 calendar days. After which it will be purged from the registry (commonly referred to as ‘dropped’). Please refer to paragraph 7.2 of the Domain Renewal, Expiry and Deletion Policy (2010-01) at http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2010-01.

    If you can provide evidence to show that your registration of the domain name does not breach the policy, then you must do so before the “pending delete” period ends.

    If we determine that your registration of the domain name does not breach the policy, then we will instruct the registrar of record to reinstate the domain name.

    Regards,

    auDA Compliance Team

    .au Domain Administration Ltd (auDA)
    T 1300 732 929
    E general@auda.org.au
    http://www.auda.org.au

    Like
    2 people like this.
  • Avatar
    February 12, 2020 at 1:48 pm
    Permalink

    Where auDA say this:

    “We note that the domain name is the same as, or incorporates an entity name, personal name or brand name in existence at the time the domain name was registered.”

    It’s CRAZY.

    We’re talking about a geographic location here?!?!?!?

    Like
    3 people like this.
    • Scott.L
      February 12, 2020 at 2:11 pm
      Permalink

      It’s a mistake. A “location” is not an entity name, personal name or brand name. Names like Australia, and names of States (I.e. Victoria…etc) are prohibited but the policy does not suggest geographical locations such as towns and cities are prohibited.

      Like
      2 people like this.
    • Avatar
      February 12, 2020 at 8:01 pm
      Permalink

      Seems the auDA officer made an error and ignored (3)(a) of the policy which says:

      a) the content on the website to which the domain name resolves must be related specifically and predominantly to subject matter denoted by the domain name;

      These things can happen but that’s why there is a warning period.

      So long as a domain name is legitimately used for monetisation or some other purpose that meets the eligibility criteria there is nothing to worry about.

      I can see your domain was taken out of delete at around 2.30 ish today? So all’s well that ends well.

      Their lawyers look silly now, and there will be no buying this domain from you for less than six figures now lol

      End users need to think long and hard before contemplating hijacking a domain.

      It almost never works and definitely not where the existing owner has demonstrated that they have rights and interests in the name. Paying a premium for a domain is one such demonstration.

      Once you try to hijack a name, the only way to get it is to sack your legal counsel, cut a check for six figures and take the domainer out for a nice seafood dinner.

      Like
      4 people like this.
  • Avatar
    February 12, 2020 at 2:34 pm
    Permalink

    BREAKING NEWS:

    I can confirm it is the Rottnest Island Authority attempting to take my domain name from me.

    Their lawyers have stated this and are “Lavan” based in Perth.

    They have now sent me an OFFICIAL OFFER to BUY the domain name from me. Even though I have never offered it for sale and have no intention of selling it.

    They have stated:

    “We are instructed that Kaay purchased the Domain licence, after the RIA inadvertently allowed its licence to expire.”

    They have just admitted it’s their own fault they lost the generic geographic domain name.

    Their official offer is as follows:

    “In circumstances where Kaay is likely to have its licence cancelled, our client is willing to offer $1,000.00 (inclusive of any taxes, including GST) (the Sum) for Kaay to transfer the Domain to the RIA. By accepting this offer, Kaay and the RIA will avoid any additional time and expense as a result of this dispute.”

    What a joke.

    They also say:

    “Further, Kaay agrees to pay any and all transfer and/or change of registrant fees charged by the registrar or other third parties.”

    Another joke.

    I will not give in to this lawyer’s baseless and empty threats.

    I suggest they think carefully before moving ahead and taking and wasting their clients’ money and file an AUDRP which I will vigorously defend and win.

    They’re also threatening to “bring a claim” against me for other fictional actions I have never and would never commit.

    And all because I purchased a generic geographic domain name from the auDA-endorsed public auction system.

    Why should I accept getting attacked like this?

    Like
    3 people like this.
  • Avatar
    February 12, 2020 at 3:41 pm
    Permalink

    The RIA have trademarks for Rottnest Island Robert so I assume that’s where the problem might arise.

    Like
    2 people like this.
    • Avatar
      February 12, 2020 at 3:56 pm
      Permalink

      If that’s what their lawyers are holding onto they’re in for a massive learning curve and a big surprise when it comes to domain names in general, and especially with geographic location domains.

      Like
      4 people like this.
      • Avatar
        February 12, 2020 at 4:44 pm
        Permalink

        I have my popcorn ready for the show. It’s interesting that they offered to buy it as well as make the complaint.

        Like
        5 people like this.
    • Avatar
      February 12, 2020 at 8:32 pm
      Permalink

      Doesn’t mean anything. No hierarchy of rights to .com.au names, first in first served.

      Check out the WIPO for GoldCoast.com
      Qld govt lost big time.

      Check out the WIPO for NewZealand.com
      NZ govt lost and had to pay more than $1 million of taxpayers money to buy it in the end

      Ill-advised, probably boomer-run

      Like
      6 people like this.
  • Avatar
    February 12, 2020 at 6:11 pm
    Permalink

    Check this out…

    The “anonymous” staff member of the “auDA Compliance Team” stated (as shown above) that the following reason for skipping their own policy and going straight to just deleting my domain name was…

    “The above policy states that the domain name “the domain name must not be, or incorporate, an entity name, personal name or brand name in existence at the time the domain name was registered.”

    What people need to realise is there is policy, and then there are the guidelines that explain the policy!

    https://www.auda.org.au/index.php/policies/index-of-published-policies/2012/2012-05/

    11.4 The second condition is that “the domain name must not be, or incorporate, an entity name, personal name or brand name in existence at the time the domain name was registered”. This condition is intended to ensure that domain monetisation is not used as a cover for cybersquatting or other misleading or fraudulent activity. In determining whether a registrant is in breach of this condition, auDA will take into account whether the DOMAIN NAME IS A GENERIC WORD or may have an alternative meaning which is not related to a specific entity, person or brand.

    The RIA lawyers and the auDA Staff Member have only looked at the policy and not the guidelines to the policy.

    The RIA lawyers still seem to have no idea there’s “no hierarchy of rights” (Trademark doesn’t matter in this case) to owning a generic, geographic or acronym Australian domain name. Especially if the domain is parked for monetisation reasons.

    I wonder how much RIA have paid the lawyers SO FAR?

    I wonder whether the auDA Staff Member maliciously left out this bit of the policy? (as they skipped various steps to order the wrongful deletion of my domain name)… or whether it was an accident and they’ve made a very big mistake?

    Like
    4 people like this.
    • Avatar
      February 13, 2020 at 2:50 am
      Permalink

      Pretty sure you can’t have an anonymous officer in administrative law.

      This is because every decision must be made by the person who derived their authority via legislation or delegated legislation, or their named delegate.

      A nameless decision will never stand.

      Poor form auDA.

      Like
      5 people like this.
  • Avatar
    February 12, 2020 at 7:21 pm
    Permalink

    auDA need to understand RDNH and not be fooled to help facilitate Reverse Domain Name Hijacking RDNH tactics ..including by shameful RDNH guilty lawyers who should and do know better.

    This is a clear Australian RDNH example of abuse of process.

    http://www.RDNH.COM

    https://dnj.com.au/hall-of-shame/

    Like
    4 people like this.
  • Avatar
    February 16, 2020 at 11:40 pm
    Permalink

    Being from Northern America I am probably off on the pronunciation but am curious if there was a reason for calling a town
    ROTTEN Nest!

Comments are closed.