OK to solicit domains in drop auction to endusers/possible TM holders?

[slimpickins]

I will probably get chastised and / or flamed for this but, considering the thread where this discussion again recently emerged was closed, I wanted to start a general discussion about it........

so, what do DNF members think about contacting potential buyers (that may or may not have a TM on the domain in question) PRIOR to securing/becoming the legal registrant thereof for a domain?

is Ok? Is OK as long as other competing domainers are not referred to as cybersquatters? Is part of the biz, deal with it? Is wrong to attempt to sell domains you don't own/have no risk regarding?

I am asking because what started as a candid reply in a thread: http://www.dnforum.com/f31/funny-yet-sad-story-thread-423892.html#post1906706 wound up comparing to "similar" practices around 2 years ago:

http://www.dnforum.com/f204/domainers-cybersquatters-namejet-dnf-member-thinks-so-thread-345397.html

http://www.dnforum.com/f557/warning-dmg-com-snapnames-auction-2-thread-340383.html#post1610030

and the discussion was, understandably for it's deviation from the OP's intent, closed.... but, it really made me wonder where other domainers see the line. If only, say, 5 domainers are doing this then it is a reasonable assumption/fear that any valuable and short domain is already being aired to possible buyers and, more importantly, potential TM holders, prior to the auction closing..... leaving either 1 of those buyers with a decent finders fee or another buyer holding a domain that has a greater risk of being taken away/involved in a lawsuit...

thoughts?

 

[Biggie]

just ask yourself


if someone sold YOU a domain that they didn't own


how would you feel .....

when the deal goes sour,

you've sent them payment....


but someone else caught the domain

instead of the scummmmmmbag that you sent payment to?


the only time someone should be offering a domain for sale that they DON'T own, is when they have permission/authorization from the current owner to broker the domain.


if, one is performing "due dilligence" prior to, then they could verify ownership and whether the domain was in auction at nj/snap, etc.

imo...

 

[katherine]

Whatever you do, avoid misrepresentation.
it would be improper to you act as if you already own the domain, or even suggest that.
It's not even brokerage, as you don't even have permission of first dibs... it's just that you know that domain xxx might be available soon, there might be competition blah blah
"do you want me to try to secure the domain on your behalf ?"
Something along these lines. But I think it's a lot of potential trouble.

 

[draggar]

I would be completely honest with them.

If I saw LocalBusinessName.com dropping and a local business (under the same name) was using the .net - I'd shoot them an email letting them know their options. I wouldn't offer to sell them the domain (selling something you don't own is not legal) but let them know that their webmaster should know what steps to attempt to aquire it.

If they respond and mention that they use a web program or online web creation then I may offer to attempt to catch the domain for them (for the drop fee + a fee) and if it goes to auction I'll have to put them into a contract stating their maximum price (bid + fee).

You'll never know - being the nice guy will seem more trustworthy and they may come to you to do more business with you in the future.

 

[slimpickins]

just to clarify: I have NEVER done this, nor am I planning to.... I simply thought it would be worthwhile to have a "general" discussion of the practice, and whether it is legal, ethical, acceptable or not and, if so, where the line is. The thread referenced from 2 years ago blew up pretty big because a TM holder that was contacted threatened legal action and in the other older thread a DNF member that was never identified apparently was contacting TM holders regarding the opportunity to secure a domain against the other bidders/"cybersquatters"...... and in the recent thread that got sidetracked into a discussion of this topic before turning personal and being closed, it really made me wonder where the line is and thought that it would be worth discussing. Is it simply a matter of languaging and, if done without falsely representing that you "have" the domain or harpooning/misrepresenting the possible intentions of any other bidder that might win, it is ok? Or is it outright wrong?

 

[Biggie]

since you basically repeated your inital post

to me, it sounds more like you're trying to find wording, that will make this practice acceptable with your conscience.


imo...

 

[slimpickins]

not at all biggedon! i attempted to say it again, but differently, because I would like to hear from more experienced (and successful) domainers that see the issue from different sides. I repeat I have never done, nor intend to do, this but after seeing a few veteran members blasting the practice and others defending it/doing it, I am left wondering whether it IS "wrong" or not. Is it illegal? Is it just a dirty/dangerous tactic that could land someone else in hot water if a TM holder that is contacted about the auction and "opportunity" takes action and someone other than the person that contacted them secures the domain? Maybe it was pointless to make a discussion of it but I felt that, given the fairly strong reactions and opinions regarding it in the recently closed thread and before, that maybe it was a topic that should be flushed out considering it can affect anyone of us involved in an auction for a similar domain by either 1) driving up the price too high (to the benefit of the person buying with someone else's money for a fee) to acquire or 2) regardless of our intended use for the domain upon winning a disgruntled TM holder that was contacted about the auction...... i guess i hoped that, if it became obvious that contacting people about domains you do not yet own but can possibly "secure for a fee" was either illegal or, at the VERY least, widely frowned upon by the domaining community that hopefully it would prevent more and more people from doing it and those that are doing it to stop or at least be VERY careful about their language and choice of who to contact.....

 

[randomo]

This all depends largely on what you think of domainers trying to profit from domains related to TMs (or, more broadly, to others' intellectual property).

I did something like this once. A domain that had been used by - and consisted of the name of - my favorite local playhouse (i.e., theater that hosted plays) was expiring. I contacted them, explained what I'd discovered, and asked whether they wanted me to obtain it for them in the drop auction [at cost].

They weren't interested - they had consciously switched their website from this .com domain to the .org version. But I feel good that I tried to help them. (Now, of course, someone has set up an annoying parking page on the .com, which confuses anyone trying to find this playhouse's site. I hope nobody clicks there.)

That example is obviously on a different scale from, say, VerizonWhateverWhatever.com. I haven't gotten involved with domains like that, so I have no comment on the bigger picture. (It's also very different from negotiating to sell, at a profit, a domain that one doesn't own yet.)

 

[slimpickins]

thanks Randomo, that's a good example/differentiation.

I agree that it is on a different scale than soliciting VerizonWhatever to verizon too... perhaps my concern (ie where this practice would affect me in an auction) is more specific and more outside of the cut & dry TM issue realm, since I focus primarily on shorter domains (mainly 4-letter for now but of course hope to move into 3-letter as well) where it is probable that someone, somewhere DOES have a TM on a set of letters but, given that these short domains are acronyms that can be used for multiple meanings, the TM issue isn't as daunting.... however, my concern regarding how someone that solicits said domain to a company that DOES have that TM during the auction can affect the auction price and/or aftermath remains.

 

[keyser]

If only, say, 5 domainers are doing this then it is a reasonable assumption/fear that any valuable and short domain is already being aired to possible buyers and, more importantly, potential TM holders, prior to the auction closing.... leaving either 1 of those buyers with a decent finders fee or another buyer holding a domain that has a greater risk of being taken away/involved in a lawsuit...

That says it all imo.

 

[slimpickins]

thanks for your input Keyser but, for me, the question still remains open whether it is "really" illegal or is legal if worded appropriately but, REGARDLESS, a practice that many (if not the vast majority of) DNF members that partake in expiring auctions find to be an unethical and DANGEROUS practice.

I guess, in retrospect, it was foolish to expect this to turn into a "discussion" since it is unlikely that anybody that IS doing this is going to contribute regarding why they believe it is legal, ethical etc UNLESS they are being called out on it (like in the case of DMG) out of fear of being attacked by members who believe it is a bad practice and/or concern that it would only encourage others to do it (thus raising competition)....... but I felt that, given the budding discussion in the recent closed thread regarding whether what invigor did regarding Dinan is in fact different that what biggs101 did regarding DMG was something worth discussing since that demonstrated, at least to me, that DNF members (or at least one) are STILL contacting buyers (and apparent TM holders) regarding domains that are in drop auction.....

In the thread from 2 years ago where an unnamed DNF member was doing similar and referring to the other bidders in the auction as "cybersquatters" I commented that it was an interesting tactic (ie at least someone was thinking outside the box) but obviously the language was far from appropriate. That wasn't meant to imply that I condone or applaud what the person did; I didn't and I still don't.... but I also didn't have the appreciation of the potential consequences for others involved in such an auction as I do now.

I was hoping that more knowledgeable and seasoned members would chime in regarding the legality and ethics of this practice but, if more members don't feel it's an issue worth discussing (to either defend the practice if they are doing it or from opponents to STRONGLY dissuade those considering or doing it currently) I thank those that offered their thoughts and opinions and will leave it at this: my own opinion on it is that I believe that, if done with the appropriate wording, it probably is "legal" to do but, regardless, is a very sneaky and potentially damaging tactic for the domain community in general and anyone else involved in your auction specifically.

 

[TheLegendaryJP]

To me its cut and dry...

When what you do can cause harm to another party (domain investor), potential buyer you contacted or yourself, it's best not to do so, period.

I could get into the moral aspect of it, screwing over other buyers if you stir up a sleepying dog etc but really this business model does not belong to a truly successful domainer/individual.

 

[slimpickins]

well put, JP, and I agree. I suppose we can leave it at that since it is doubtful that anyone doing it is going to chime in about it's legitimacy. Thanks again everyone that gave their perspective.