Goodwill Hunting?

Posted on January 26, 2010 by Guest Blogger

Similar to the Hostess Brands, Inc. predicament, recently posted by Dan Kelly, Goodwill Industries International, Inc. (www.goodwill.org), the well-known and respected non-profit, didn't own the one domain you would expect -- Goodwill.com.

The domain went up for auction this past December after the original owner, a Japanese staffing company named Goodwill Group, Inc., changed its name and allowed Goodwill.com to expire. 

Instead of seizing the opportunity to own and control this element of their brand by simply buying it at auction, Goodwill Industries gambled, in my opinion, by trying to stop the auction. Ultimately, they lost their request as well as the domain. Their next act was to sue the owner of Goodwill.com for trademark infringement and violation of anti-cybersquatting protection act, amongst other claims.

As reported by Domain Name Wire, this month the case was dismissed without prejudice and the Goodwill.com domain finally went to Goodwill Industries. Although this resolution is good for Goodwill, not owning Goodwill.com earlier denied them the domain during the key December donation period, and, potentially, could have proven a very expensive and lengthy process to resolve.

Since monitoring a domain is relatively uncomplicated, it is puzzling why Goodwill industries would allow Goodwill.com to get away so easily. As a brand manager, I am surprised Goodwill wasn't more vigilant or diligent in pursuing and protecting something so apparently associated with their trademark and their brand.

The goodwill (pun intended) a domain name inures to a brand cannot be overemphasized. One of the more important aspects of branding is presence. On the worldwide stage of the Internet, domains perform a leading role in brand proliferation. 

A domain dispute and the associated confusion, as in this case, was unnecessary, considering resolution could have been reached without extraordinary effort and without hunting for legal remedy.

—Randall Hull, The Br@nd Ranch® 

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Request Info

See our or enter your information below to send us a quick message and we'll reply in one business day or less.

Your privacy is ensured. We will never sell, disclose, or trade contact information.

Fraud at Domain Name Auction House

Posted on November 6, 2009 by Dan Kelly

A bomb exploded in the domain name aftermarket world on Wednesday.  A well-known domain name auction house called SnapNames.com announced that one of its (now former) employees had been bidding as a shill in many online domain name auctions run by the company since 2005.  SnapNames has an FAQ page on the matter here. 

It is not difficult to decry the many abuses that have gone on in the domaining industry:  cybersquatting, typosquatting, domain name tasting, domain name kiting, pay-per-click fraud, and now shill bidding (to name a few).  As these abuses tend to make for the juciest news, it is not surprising that some (including trademark attorneys) accuse the whole domain name business (or "industry") of being dirty.  But law, being a generally slow, blunt instrument, has so far caught up with only the first two of the abuses listed above.  What is less widely reported is that, for all of its wild-westness, the DN business has policed itself (e.g. cybersquatting, domain tasting) without resort to government intervention.  This is as it should be. 

Even so, self-policing is also slow to catch up to opportunists, so caveat emptor is the rule of the day in domain name transactions, especially when bidding at an auction, especially an online auction.  I recommend reading any auction site's rules, terms and conditions carefully before engaging in a transaction.  Some of these sites will readily represent both buyer and seller, which is a situation well-known to lawyers and real estate agents as a "conflict of interest."  Caveat emptor, indeed. 

Domaining is a buy low, sell high business.  While it has warts, and while some debate whether the business of domain name reselling is at all "legitimate," I do not think that the answer, or even an answer, to any of its problems is that governments step in to regulate it.  One of the virtues of self-policing (and by this, I mean by such umbrella entities as ICANN) is that the rules and regulations developed tend to be transnational, obviating the need for an international potpourri of laws, regulations, and, ultimately, lawyers.  While it is against my self-interest to admit it, I think this is a good thing.
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,