@ryannathans@vk6flab Firstly, not grandfathering existing names is bad. As continuity of email addresses is often assumed for authentication. So this will bring on some fraud.
Secondly, corporate names are often not the name traded under. Once worked for SOCOG, which you would know better as Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, which we branded as Sydney 2000. Even worse is the case where usage replaces the company name, as in Macca’s.
Thirdly, consumers often know the product name better than the company. Fanta being a good example here. But also the various franchise arrangements.
Fourthly, companies are not static. Changing all email addresses when A and B merge to become C is bad, but see also fraud above.
There is a lot of benefit to having the companies’ registry, rather than the trademark registry, be the final arbiter of domain disputes for .com.au. A small Australian company using ipod.com.au should not have to move because of a marketing decision by a US multinational. But this is not that policy.
it’s tricky though… this used to be exactly the rules until they removed a huge number of requirements for .au domains, and it helped to curb squatting. it wasn’t a perfect solution, but they number of squatted .au domains since the change has shot way up
to properly solve the issue of squatting, you can’t grandfather domains otherwise already squatted domains would be held probably for even longer because they can’t cheaply pick up more
you can probably introduce more rules with words like “primary business purpose” etc, but auDA just doesn’t have the resources to really litigate all the grey areas that’d introduce
but for sure if “registered business name” doesn’t including trading as names and things like ad campaigns then that’s incorrect
@ryannathans @vk6flab Firstly, not grandfathering existing names is bad. As continuity of email addresses is often assumed for authentication. So this will bring on some fraud.
Secondly, corporate names are often not the name traded under. Once worked for SOCOG, which you would know better as Sydney 2000 Olympic Games, which we branded as Sydney 2000. Even worse is the case where usage replaces the company name, as in Macca’s.
Thirdly, consumers often know the product name better than the company. Fanta being a good example here. But also the various franchise arrangements.
Fourthly, companies are not static. Changing all email addresses when A and B merge to become C is bad, but see also fraud above.
There is a lot of benefit to having the companies’ registry, rather than the trademark registry, be the final arbiter of domain disputes for .com.au. A small Australian company using ipod.com.au should not have to move because of a marketing decision by a US multinational. But this is not that policy.
Those are good points, were all of those cases previously valid domains?
it’s tricky though… this used to be exactly the rules until they removed a huge number of requirements for .au domains, and it helped to curb squatting. it wasn’t a perfect solution, but they number of squatted .au domains since the change has shot way up
to properly solve the issue of squatting, you can’t grandfather domains otherwise already squatted domains would be held probably for even longer because they can’t cheaply pick up more
you can probably introduce more rules with words like “primary business purpose” etc, but auDA just doesn’t have the resources to really litigate all the grey areas that’d introduce
but for sure if “registered business name” doesn’t including trading as names and things like ad campaigns then that’s incorrect