Betat v's domain squatters

[conker]

I just happened to be looking something up on the Betat website earlier today and simply typed in betat.com. I was amazed to see that a company called Slot.com owned the domain and were redirecting it to their own site. I then had a look around at other variations and noticed that the owner of bet-at.com was selling their domain for $2300.

Now, this sort of begs the question. How come betat didn't manage to get these domains before they launched? How are these companies still managing to get away with using their brand?

 

[Casinomeister]

They should have claimed trademark rights via a TM attached to their logo - and then registered it in the EU - then USA - then globally. You can never snag up all of the domains, besides it's more effective to be protected - legally. I don't know why they didn't do this.

 

[Casinomeister]

I just wanted to add that domain squatters are scum. These douchebags know perfectly well that BetAt is a business - a popular one at that. Once BetAt claims their trademark, they should be able to wrestle the domain free via litigation.

 

[conker]

I just wanted to add that domain squatters are scum. These douchebags know perfectly well that BetAt is a business - a popular one at that. Once BetAt claims their trademark, they should be able to wrestle the domain free via litigation.

I agree, squatting on a domain purely to seek remuneration from the trademark owner is completely out of order and I hope Betat go to town on these guys when they catch up with them. Particularly unimpressed with Slot.com, just lazy leechers trying to grab a bit of traffic off a company that are working hard on their brand.

 

[Zabier]

BetAt isn't the sort of domain you'd expect someone to squat so this all seems a bit strange. I'm not very sympathetic towards domain squatters but I can see why they do it. As Casinomeister said, the trademark issue should help them to sort this whole debacle fairly quickly so not sure why it hasn't been sorted already. I'm sure there's a reason, whatever it is.

 

[bonustreak]

I'm sure there's a reason, whatever it is.

Can't be anything good that's for sure!

 

[P.V.]

Saying that domainers are scum and squatters IMO isn't actually correct. Domaining is big business and if done correctly can be very profitable as many domain names sell for thousands if not millions of dollars. And some for a few hundred.

I've glanced at betat, it's not trademarked, you can search here:

You do not have permission to view link Log in or register now.

Domainers are speculators/investors just like any other business and it's big.

Domaining forums, auction sites etc...

I probably own 300 domain names but I know the law and yes have legal TM council to advise on my investments.

 

[conker]

I don't think there is anything wrong with domain prospecting and I too have a number of domains that I hold which might have commercial value later down the track.

It is the deliberate targeting of brand terms. I know I know, more fool the brand for not securing their brand domain, but I can't help feeling that it is just not right to register a domain in the hope that the owner of that trademark will eventually have to stump up and buy it off you.

I know its legal (where no trademark exists), I know its common, I just don't think its very ethical.

 

[vinylweatherman]

I don't think there is anything wrong with domain prospecting and I too have a number of domains that I hold which might have commercial value later down the track.

It is the deliberate targeting of brand terms. I know I know, more fool the brand for not securing their brand domain, but I can't help feeling that it is just not right to register a domain in the hope that the owner of that trademark will eventually have to stump up and buy it off you.

I know its legal (where no trademark exists), I know its common, I just don't think its very ethical.

I don't have much sympathy with the bigger firms because ethics is not top of their list either, they are out to make as much money as possible, and by pushing the boundaries as far as they can without getting into serious trouble, or suffering a consumer backlash.

Take the recent backlash over the Cadbury's Crème Egg. Kraft quietly changed the recipe to use a cheaper chocolate for the shell, and when customers complained, Kraft spewed BS about how they never "officially" used the good chocolate anyway, so it's not really a change. They then tried to make fools of the customers by claiming it was always this way, and that the shells were always made from a variety of different chocolate formulae, and that it was nothing to do with cutting cost. They also took 1 egg out of the standard pack so it's now 5 instead of 6, and again tried to brush this off as there never having been an "official" pack of 6 to start with. They have pushed the boundary so far that the customers are lashing back, yet they are trying to hold the cost cutting ground they conquered.

If some smartass customer pushes back by squatting on a domain they could use in the future then it's tough, they should understand - it's all about the money, and sod the ethics. These big companies wouldn't even bend down to pick up the small amounts it costs to buy up these domains from the "little people".

It's different when a squatted domain is used to trick consumers, or worse defraud them, by pretending to be that company.

Domain squatting is a bit like buying up land in the hope that one day it will be granted planning permission for housing, which would make it's value rocket, and then selling it on to a developer at a premium price.