Oakley Inc., how cheaters win the game...

[Jan Jaap]

Btw, regarding my cross posting. I wanted to post my story on the most respectable webmaster forum for people to learn from and to discuss the matter. SitePoint and DigitalPoint seem both as respectable (in Google PR) so I posted it on both forums. I hope you don't mind.

[Jan Jaap]

a search for Oakley inc gives this page in 13th place.. Nice job man


Sorry to hear the storry

Google loves actual content since so do users It doesn't mean this listing will remain for long dough, it would depend on the popularity of the article. Users that click on the article from Google search, users linking to it from other websites in a natural speed etc.

[Dave Zan]

It wasn't wrong at all

Maybe the intent to form a mutually beneficial relationship wasn't wrong. But
what you subsequently did was (potentially) wrong, especially if whatever law
allowed Oakley to eventually do what they did.

You may believe what you offered is good for them. But obviously you do not
get to decide that for them.

I agree, though, that this thread has a few valuable lessons to learn, some of
which have already been gleaned by other posters. But to put it it in 2 simple
words: ask permission.

No permission, no go.

[Jan Jaap]

Replies to that thread on DigitalPoint simply show how much more advanced sitepoint is at this kind of thing.

Selling a domain for 25k is simply over the top. Especially for an suffix which isn't mainstream. I'm not supprised that they were offended.

If you want to do a company a favor, park the domain and send them an offer. Don't touch it until they reply.

How come you think I wanted to sell the domain for 25k? It was only after 6 months that I offered the domain for sale to them, as they were not responding all that time...

It was not my intention at all to sell the domain, but they could have if they wanted to.

I also had 3 major reasons why I (wanted) to ask 25k:

• The domain was worth a lot more then the asking price
• I didn't really want to sell the domain but invest a lot in it myself to do it really well, since Oakley was negligent in service
• IF they did wanted to buy the domain, a higher price may have led them to notice the value of the Dutch market and finally do something in The Netherlands

[Jake Arkinstall]

I doubt a .nl domain with THEIR company name should be worth alot more than 25k. Be serious.

a higher price may have led them to notice the value of the Dutch market and finally do something in The Netherlands

I also doubt that a large company would branch out to a different country just because som guy offered them a domin for a high price. A business makes their own decisions.

[samsm]

• The domain was worth a lot more then the asking price
• I didn't really want to sell the domain but invest a lot in it myself to do it really well, since Oakley was negligent in service
• IF they did wanted to buy the domain, a higher price may have led them to notice the value of the Dutch market and finally do something in The Netherlands

The only reason the domain is worth over a registration fee is the Oakley brand. That value is Oakley's, not yours.

Oakley can respond to your business propositions as slow as they want. The optometrist is irrelevant, that person obviously lacked authority in this matter.

Poor international sales support is unfortunate, but again, the company's right.

The only casualty here has been time and ego, write it off.

[Jan Jaap]

Sure, for a webshop (optometrist in The Netherlands that want to use it for a webshop) like www.oakley.be has done.

It's worth it, you can have the investment returned in 1 year with not much work.

And for me it would be worth 10.000 euro, just for fun as fan of the brand. There are sertainly more people like me. Of course I do want to be sure that I could not lose it then, but it was worth the risk for 4k.

[Jake Arkinstall]

It's worth it, you can have the investment returned in 1 year with not much work.

But they make the decisions.

What if a guy came to your business (I'll refer to it as 'yourbusiness') and offered you a domain name: yourbusiness.co.nz, for e50,000.

You have no interest in branching to New Zealand, and this guy keeps trying to contact you (and, let's face it, you're a busy guy).

So, one day you check this out, and it has unrelated content but has content about your company on it - without your permission.

You're not in a great mood anyway, because this guy keeps contacting you with something you really don't want, but has content about your company. This just exacerbates things.

Think of it from their point of view.

[Jan Jaap]

But they make the decisions.

What if a guy came to your business (I'll refer to it as 'yourbusiness') and offered you a domain name: yourbusiness.co.nz, for e50,000.

You have no interest in branching to New Zealand, and this guy keeps trying to contact you (and, let's face it, you're a busy guy).

So, one day you check this out, and it has unrelated content but has content about your company on it - without your permission.

You're not in a great mood anyway, because this guy keeps contacting you with something you really don't want, but has content about your company. This just exacerbates things.

Think of it from their point of view.

True, and I admit myself to their preference. If they could just take the domain, that would have been the risk I took. It's ok.

And I have experienced this once btw, I forgot to renew my company domain Zilverberg.com and then a domain trader snatched it and offered it to me for 5000 Dutch guilders. Aldough they were obviously making a profit on my name, I did really understand it was all my fault for not renewing the domain in time and I did felt required to pay the amount to get the domain back.

[Kevin Boss]

You acted just like how a domain squatter would act. You registered a trademark, offered to sell it to the company with a HUGE markup, then built a site that would allow you to claim fair use.

I'm not saying you're a squatter, but what you basically did what squatters do. If you never added the 25K price tag, I think the outcome would have been much different.

Do you really think the domain name would be that valuable if it wasn't linked to a trademark?

[htpc]

Although it sounds like you had all the best intentions, looking at it from Oakley's point of view it comes across as though your trying to hold them to ransom in a way, like you gave them a choice to either go into business with you or otherwise pay you something anyway.

I don't believe that big companies need to snatch up all geographical domains, dot com usually does enough.

[spikeZ]

the overriding theme in all of this Jan is INTENTION.

It was your intention to set up an Oakley reselling site because you like the company
It wasn't your intention to rip them off or do anything bad to their business reputation
It wasnt your intention to sell the domain name for 25,000e (when it could have been purchased by them for something like 30e?!!)
It wasnt your intention to make it look like you were trying to take them for a ride
It wasnt your intention to change the focus of the site when they didnt get back to you to make it look legit....

It wasnt Oakley's intention to nail your proverbial backside to the mast and leave you sailing 3 sheets to the wind - oh wait, yes it was.

They saw what you were doing and gave you just enough rope to hang yourself with and if I can slide in one more saying - you fell for it hook, line and sinker.

My Advice?
Buy Rudy Project sunglasses and move on.

[Jan Jaap]

You acted just like how a domain squatter would act. You registered a trademark, offered to sell it to the company with a HUGE markup, then built a site that would allow you to claim fair use.

I'm not saying you're a squatter, but what you basically did what squatters do. If you never added the 25K price tag, I think the outcome would have been much different.

Do you really think the domain name would be that valuable if it wasn't linked to a trademark?

That's not the right timeframe.

Did you notice my dealer contacted Oakley, why do you think he did that? To help me sell the domain? No, we wanted to work together to build something on the domain.

And I only offered the domain for sale AFTER 6 months of no response from Oakley. I don't see why that would be illegal, it wasn't that it was clear that I was demanding that price and wouldn't lower it to just 5 cents. They did not talk to me, so they have no right to assume anything I think.

[Jake Arkinstall]

Hint: Next time, ring the CEO (or another member of senior management).

Emails take forever to get answered - voice to voice is answered within seconds (or a promised phone call back).

[Dave Zan]

they have no right to assume anything I think.

And you think you have the right to assume anything, considering you never
got their reply, much more their permission, to use their intellectual property
for your own monetary benefit?

While no one's required to be aware of Netherlands trademark law, ignorance
has never really been known to excuse anyone. It's unfortunate that it cost
you, but...it could've been worse.

Honestly, Jan, you're understandably trying hard to defend your actions. But
it doesn't change the fact you were seemingly trying to commercially benefit
from another party's trademark rights without their consent, and apparently
there's a Netherlands law against that.

Lots of people already told you what should've been done and what to maybe
do next time. I don't know how else anyone around can make it any clearer.

I agree Oakley could've been nice and friendly about it. But again, no one can
force them to be so.

[Jan Jaap]

And you think you have the right to assume anything, considering you never
got their reply, much more their permission, to use their intellectual property
for your own monetary benefit?

I don't believe they own this domain just because they have a trade mark name. I wasn't using it to sell Oakley products without permission or anything. And the Google Oakley sunglasses ads have been on the site unintentionally for a short time untill I noticed them myself. It may have been a mistake, but I actually believe it should not count as an attempt to exploit the Oakley brand name on the domain without permission.

I own(ed) that domain, it would seem logically to me that I should be able to make profit with it in a legal way. If not, it would be fine with me but my lawyers tell me a different thing so what you say make no sense to me.

While no one's required to be aware of Netherlands trademark law, ignorance
has never really been known to excuse anyone. It's unfortunate that it cost
you, but...it could've been worse.

Honestly, Jan, you're understandably trying hard to defend your actions. But
it doesn't change the fact you were seemingly trying to commercially benefit
from another party's trademark rights without their consent, and apparently
there's a Netherlands law against that.

Lots of people already told you what should've been done and what to maybe
do next time. I don't know how else anyone around can make it any clearer.

I agree Oakley could've been nice and friendly about it. But again, no one can
force them to be so.

Yes, you are right about that but they tried to make me look bad and that's more then just not being friendly. It's suspicious at least, they may have never won the case otherwise (and shouldn't have started it for that reason).

[Unit7285]

They did not know however, about the evil tricks Oakley was going to use to make me look bad so that they were able to obtain the domain from me. Oakley Inc. tried to make me look like a smart domain trader that only wanted to make a fast buck on behalf of their brand name. It felt so evil from them, because they really knew that they were not telling the truth. But not only that, they even suggested that I would have messed with documents that the I provided as proof of my attempts to contact them. They told the judge that they believed I changed the dates of the documents and suggested they never received those emails and faxes from me or my dealer. As if I committed fraud.

Oakley cheated, and that may have been the major reason they have won this case.

Well here's the official transcript of the case, and it suggests otherwise:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2008-0010.html

It's just like thousands of other cases - you lost it because you failed the well-established primary tests that determine every WIPO domain name arbitration: identical name; no right or legitimate interest in the name; registered in bad faith.

You would have failed those mandatory tests regardless of what you claim Oakley said about attempts to contact them, or how long the Google ads were online.

Claiming in your defence that your company is called Oakley Publishing because you live in an area with lots of oak trees probably didn't help either, though I'm sure it brought a smile to the arbitrator's face.


Paul

[spikeZ]

This really is going nowhere and fast. I am closing this thread as it is getting boring and pointless.
If you want to carry it on - go over to DP, if you want it reopened PM me.