rottnest island steal domain name

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…

When is the next Assets Show?

Sign up to receive new episodes of The Assets Show in your inbox.

We don’t spam!

15 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Don Rankin

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.
Scott Long

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.
James

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.
Peter

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

Like
2 people like this.
Peter

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.
Damien

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.
Damien

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.
Alan

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.
Domain Dawg

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!