What ads show up on a parked page make a big difference.
Anyone can own the domain name MyEnterprise.com. Enterprise is a dictionary word, often referring to businesses and large organizations.
But the owner of MyEnterprise.com just lost the domain name in a UDRP brought by Enterprise Rent-A-Car.com, and for good reason. It’s worth digging into this a bit to clear two common misconceptions:
1. You can blame PPC algorithms for the keywords displayed on your parked page.
2. You shouldn’t park a domain name because it makes it easier for someone to win a UDRP.
In the case of MyEnterprise.com, the page showed a lot of keywords clearly related to the car rental company. This is a big reason the domain name owner lost; It appeared he registered the domain in bad faith to traffic on Enterprise Rent-A-Car’s reputation.
The owner of the domain name tried to blame the PPC algorithm for picking terms related to car rental. Most panelists frown upon this argument, especially if the majority of links are related to the trademark holder. In general, you’re responsible for your parking company’s actions.
This doesn’t mean you shouldn’t park domain names, however. Parking domain names and showing ads related to the dictionary meaning of a term can be helpful in proving rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.
Had MyEnterprise.com shown a bunch of ads for enterprise software or business management software, many panelists would have considered this a bona fide use of the domain name for advertising services.
You nailed it.
I am frequently asked “is parking good or bad?”. The answer to that question is “yes”.
It’s a good idea to review your top-performing names, and names which have strong generic value, to take a look at what ads are showing up. If a name like TideWatch.xyz is coming up with ads relating to laundry, instead of ads relating to timepieces and boating, then that’s a name that should come off of parking. It’s the difference between Procter & Gamble winning or losing a UDRP dispute.
Unfortunately, most PPC systems have made it more difficult to suppress undesired advertising or to suggest relevant categories of ads, because the upstream advertising providers (who are insulated from liability) are concerned about domainers sending “low quality” traffic to high valued advertising categories without regard to keyword relevance. The problem is that, on the other end, advertisers bid highest on keywords corresponding to their brands (and infringing advertisers likewise bid on keywords corresponding to competitive brands). So while it is advertiser behavior that causes a lot of generic keywords to gravitate toward brand-relevant PPC results, the domain registrant is often left holding the bag. Compounding that problem is the behavior of more advanced PPC systems which use browser and search history from the user’s own device, such that a brand owner or attorney is more likely to see brand-relevant advertising on a PPC page and to believe that it is a consequence of domain registrant behavior.
That sort of problem was understood by the panels in the pig.com and elephant.com but, in general, UDRP panelists have little understanding of how these systems operate, and take the simple course of attributing PPC system behavior to the domain registrant, while the PPC providers and advertising companies profit relatively risk free.
A more effective brand enforcement strategy would involve going after advertisers who are abusing the system by generating traffic on competitive brand keywords, since going after a handful of individual domain names doesn’t get at the larger problem of those advertisements coming up in keyword searches in general, across thousands of domain names.
Thanks for the write up.
Yeah, based off what I’ve read in the past regarding UDRP’s, be very careful of what domains you park because things like this could happen to anyone.
What if he would have had a “This domain name may be for sale” page. Would he have had an issue then?
-Omar
Hi Andrew, Joseph,
I have been a regular visitor and I would like to use this comment to pose a few questions. I have invested in about 500 domains and for most, my aim is to resell them.
1) Do you recommend listing them at a domain auctioning/marketing/parking site like SEDO? Another option I would venture is to establish a proprietary “domain developing” website that would index them and offer a contact us form, possibly adding advertisements to capitalize on the visitors that won’t seek to make an offer?
2) Do you advise on having a company or an individual owning the domain names? Apart from the different countries’ tax policies, what other issues should be considered?
3) Regarding UDRPs, what is the best practice RE: questions 1 and 2? Apart from udrpsearch com, what are other good references to read/follow?
4) If auctioning any of the domains in a given portfolio, where is it best to do it? When reading your posts and reports, it seems you quote NameJet and SnapNames the most. Anything else?
Thank you in advance!
@ Hedge,
Joseph is welcome to comment as well. But let me provide my thoughts.
1. Yes, you should list them on Sedo and Afternic. Here’s a report about why you should do this and how to do so:
https://domainnamewire.com/sell-domains-report/
You can still park your domains with a for sale lander from companies like Domain Name Sales or Efty. You don’t have to park with Sedo or Afternic to list with them.
2. I always recommend transacting business under a company name. If it’s just you, can can set up a single member LLC if you are in the US.
3. The best approach is to not register typos of brands or have major brands in your domains. I provide pretty comprehensive coverage of notable cases, and UDRPsearch is good as well. If you don’t get hit with a UDRP, hire a competent UDRP lawyer.
4. NameJet and SnapNames auctions are good. Keep in mind you’re selling to other domain investors, so you won’t get end user prices. End users generally won’t show up to an auction.
Andrew, why do you say the domain owner lost “for good reason”? If the only indication of bad faith was the concentration of PPC ads related to 1 brand on the parked page, then that’s a very weak argument for proving bad faith.
PPC ads might have converged at Enterprise Rent-A-Car simply because that set of ads converted better than ads for enterprise software. Naturally, a parking algorithm will try to optimize conversions.
And that’s what Enterprise itself WANTS. They pay per click in order to be found. And I’m guessing theirs is the highest PPC bid for “enterprise”. Someone involved in enterprise software might bid high to be seen in results for “enterprise software” but not for the keyword “enterprise” without “software”. Relevance drives AdWords bidding just as it drives conversions. What I’m driving at here is this: By bidding higher than any other “enterprise” advertiser, Enterprise Rent-A-Car itself might have biased the ad results on the parked page in its favor. Yet the company complains that its ads are being displayed where relevant enough to convert well?
In most cases, a domain owner is completely unaware of what PPC ads are displayed on his parked domain. So what evidence – if any at all – suggests that this domain owner had any awareness or control of the ads at MyEnterprise.com?
Andrew, you say that it’s a misconception – the idea that we can blame the parking algorithm for the ads it displays. Well, yes, if UDRP panels dismiss that argument, then it’s a misconception to think we can rely on it. But the argument itself seems altogether sound to me. Unless there’s reason to believe the domain owner manually arranged for his domain to show ads related to rental cars, then we ought to assume the parking algorithm is responsible for doing its job.
If Enterprise Rent-A-Car wants to withdraw its ads from domains such as MyEnterprise.com, then the parking company could easily arrange that. But why on earth is Enterprise justified in doing this while it simultaneously pays per click to be featured in Google search results for “my enterprise”? To me that’s inconsistency bordering on hypocrisy.
It’s almost impossible for a domain owner to prevent the parking company from displaying ads in this way. Especially across a whole portfolio. How would this have been prevented except by not using domain parking?
Outcomes like this provide a very strong argument for not parking one’s domains. Unless parking companies accept responsibility in cases like this, they may see an exodus of domain owners as we opt for landing pages devoid of PPC.
Joseph,
This is a two-click lander, meaning that keywords are picked for the landing page, and then these click through to the advertisers for each keyword.
I’m sure rental car keywords converted better for this page, and it wouldn’t surprise me if people were coming with car rentals in mind. However, panels generally say it’s up to you to police what keywords show up on your page. You can’t blame the algorithm. An exception is if the complainant tries to manipulate the parking page ads by repeatedly searching for a term.
There is good reason to park MyEnterprise.com if you do it correctly. The complainant has to prove that you lack legitimate rights or interests in the domain and that you registered it in bad faith. If you park it and show ads specifically related to the dictionary meaning, this can provide rights or legit interests as providing advertising services related to the dictionary meaning. If you don’t park it, you have to convince the panel that you have rights/legit interests based on being a domain investor. This is a logical argument, and some panelists go for it (especially on a very generic word), but it can be harder.
I own the domain name MyAdvent.com. I bought it for the Christmas connotation. It is parked showing ads with this connotation. There is also a software company called Advent. If all of my ads were for software, I would be more likely to lose a UDRP for the domain.
Of course, the complainant has to prove all three, including registration in bad faith. If you register a dictionary term, and most of the ads are related to a brand with the same name, and you have a “for sale” banner, many panelists will say it was registered in bad faith.
You can make an argument that this isn’t fair, especially since Google has taken most of the control for what keywords show up on the page away from your parking company. But there’s fairness, and then there’s the reality of UDRP decisions. The latter matters most.
I own the domain name MyAdvent.com. I bought it for the Christmas connotation, and it shows ads related to religion. There’s also a software company called Advent. If my parked page showed a bunch of software ads, it would be more difficult to argue I bought it for the dictionary meaning of Advent.
@Andrew,
If it’s up to me to police the keywords on my parked pages, then how am I to do that? Visit thousands of parked domains daily or weekly or monthly? Even that fails, since PPC ad displays are a function of who is looking. Given that variability, my own eyeballs fail to predict what someone else – especially the advertisers – will see.
Suppose I skim through ten thousand of pages of PPC ads on a quarterly basis, even so I must 2nd-guess which of those advertisers will wake up tomorrow and resent being advertised. When companies pay per click to appear in Google for “fuzzy bunnies”, how can they turn around and claim that when Google places their same ad on FuzzyBunnies.TLD it is somehow a conspiracy of the domain owner? They themselves paid Google to display their ads here. Google and the parking companies carry out their orders. Then everybody concerned throws the registrant under the bus!
Sorry, the rationale behind these UDRP decisions – if there was no further evidence of bad faith – seems utterly ludicrous to me. Panelists seem not to understand even the rudiments of how PPC advertising and domain parking function.
Yes, I agree “there’s fairness, and then there’s the reality of UDRP decisions”. But if the parking companies aren’t going to step up and educate UDRP panelists, defending their registrant customers from misunderstanding and abuse, then maybe it’s time for registrants to throw domain parking companies under the bus for a change.
Take your fuzzy bunnies example. Let’s say there’s a car company called Fuzzy Bunnies. They bid on the term Fuzzy Bunnies. But they don’t tell anyone to show “Fuzzy Bunnies Cars” on fuzzybunnies.TLD. That’s a different keyword, and different from a one click lander that shows everyone bidding for “fuzzy bunnies” in a list.
The issue of behavioral ads, which John brought up, is another matter. If someone from Fuzzy Bunnies Cars sees and ad on FuzzyBunnies.tld because they obviously visit their own Fuzzy Bunnies website and they use retargeting ads, then you need a competent UDRP response to explain this to the panel.
@Andrew,
But Enterprise Rent-A-Car is deliberately advertising under “my enterprise” in Google. In fact, they’re the only ad that shows up on the SERP.
So, you see, their own instructions to Google (via AdWords) would lead inexorably to PPC ads on a matching domain. It’s no wonder their ads dominated the parked page on MyEnterprise.com. Nobody else is paying to appear there. But they are.
Right. If the keyword showing up on MyEnterprise.com was just “My Enterprise” and then someone clicked through and saw Enterprise’s ad, that’s one thing. But the keywords that were showing up were:
Book a Car Rental
Discount Car Rental Rates
Car Rental Companys (sic)
Cheap Car Rental Cars
@Andrew,
Who chooses those link titles on page 1 – the parking company, the parking algorithm, or the domain owner? My assumption is the algorithm.
Algorithms certainly can learn from clicks and/or semantic data. Google has long been able to group together related search phrases under “Broad” stats in AdWords; and Google assigns titles to them. Isn’t this much the same thing?
Personally, I largely disregard parking; so I may be missing something fairly obvious to people who micromanage their parked domains or who were around for the heyday of parking when it made more sense to pay attention to the functionality of parked pages. Is there something (anything) that indicates the domain owner actively encouraged such ads?
” When companies pay per click to appear in Google for “fuzzy bunnies”, how can they turn around and claim that when Google places their same ad on FuzzyBunnies.TLD it is somehow a conspiracy of the domain owner? They themselves paid Google to display their ads here.”
Exactly! They are getting what they paid for. This system SUCKS.
I don’t ppc any of my high value names. Put up a WordPress site with a contact form. They should at least give the “offending” owner a chance to remove the ads from the domain. One strike and your out approach is THEFT. imo
Another note: this is a big reason I’d be wary about parking three letter or 4 letter domains. Unless it has a dictionary meaning, what kind of ads will show?
Been saying this about parked pages and ads for how long now…
Parking pages with PPC adds are a ‘domainers’ trap, that is reality… For example, one of my domains LosAngelesAngels (com) is a geo domain for start up investors (angels). I have spoken to an end user with a similar TM and they have ABSOLUTELY no problem with me owning this domain, unless I put PPC adds on a parking page or anything relevant to their Trade Mark….When in doubt, stay far away from PPC parking pages..Just my opinion, having successfully defended a UDRP from a sitting U.S. President I thought I would add to this conversation.
Protectedparking is incredible parking generic terms, say you have hotels, mortgage, booking, homes, insurance etc. misspelled terms of these words can be redirected to brand. But enterprise, rentcar no because that is a brand IMO.
You can’t get a TM on generic words so those are fair game to hold. The biggest domain holders hold these type of generic mistypes… Thoughts anyone
Given a recent occurence (which I wont details here so as n ot to highlight it) I removed ALL my domains from PPC .It just is not worth it at all.What revenue you get nowadays is a pittance unless you are lucky (am I right ??) so risky losing domains is pointless.
We lost this case… Anyone can lose, if you are using “Enterprise” as a word… If you dont believe me, just go to UdrpSearch.com website and type in “Enterprise” you will see, that company won all enterprise domains… This is very, VERY interesting… So lets share our respond for NAF…You will see how we lost…?
RESPONSE
We bought MyEnterprise.com domain name on 05/07/2015 from DropCatch.com public auction website.
Domain investing in generic domain names is a respectable and legal practice. Domain name investing, like other legitimate businesses; buying expired domain names and using them for parking purposes and domain brokering is a legitimate interest.
We had neither actual nor constructive knowledge of Complainant’s trademark or its rights in the trademark.
We selected and combined the generic and common dictionary words “My” and “Enterprise”.
Complainant’s mark ENTERPRISE consists entirely of a single generic and common word over which complainant cannot claim an exclusive and monopolistic right to use on the Internet.
Our domain name “MyEnterprise” is not confusingly similar to the complaint’s trademark “enterprise”. The complaint’s trademark is registered in International Class 35 for “automotive fleet management services”; International Class 37 for “automotive repair services”; Class 39 for “short‐term rental and leasing of automobiles and trucks”; and International Class 42 for “automotive dealership services.”
Enterprise means “An organisation, especially a business, or a difficult and important plan, especially one that will earn money:”
(http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/enterprise)
So the enterprise should not be registered lonely. Because this trademark does not have any distinctiveness. As we know; distinctiveness is an important concept in the law governing trademarks and service marks. A trademark may be eligible for registration, or registrable, if it performs the essential trademark function, and has distinctive character. Registrability can be understood as a continuum, with “inherently distinctive” marks at one end, “generic” and “descriptive” marks with no distinctive character at the other end, and “suggestive” and “arbitrary” marks lying between these two points. “Descriptive” marks must acquire distinctiveness through secondary meaning – consumers have come to recognize the mark as a source indicator – to be protectable. “Generic” terms are used to refer to the product or service itself and cannot be used as trademarks. A descriptive mark is a term with a dictionary meaning which is used in connection with products or services directly related to that meaning. An example might be Salty used in connection with saltine crackers or anchovies. Such terms are not registrable unless it can be shown that distinctive character has been established in the term through extensive use in the market place. Lektronic was famously refused protection by the USPTO on the grounds of being descriptive for electronic goods. But it is registered anyway. So the added “my” as a prefix to the ENTERPRISE mark created a distinctiveness to the trademark.
Please see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trademark_distinctiveness
The word “enterprise” is used as part of a domain name in combination with the word “My” because both words are generic, and the combination of two generic words does not create a protectable interest.
“Enterprise” is a common word and that no one can claim exclusive rights to common words. Enterprise is related to“entrepreneurship” and that it is not related to car rentals.
There are various businesses and organizations that use “enterprise” as the primary word in their domain names, not to mention countless domains that use the word “enterprise” as a secondary word. Furthermore, the word “enterprise” is one of the most common words used in yellow pages.
We have been using the Disputed Domain Name in good faith and have rights and legitimate interests under the Policy. The Disputed Domain Name is best suited for addressing the websites providing application and information based on dictionary meanings of words in the domain name. The website addressed by this domain name provides the advertising services for “my”, “automobile”, “car”, “enterprise”, “enterprises”…etc. selected by the search engine aggregators and syndicators, displaying the advertising links that semantically match this domain name phrases and words in the names and serve the advertising application content selected to make the best possible match of the domain name phrase meaning with the available search engine advertising content based on the same meaning. When searching the Internet, using words and phrases, surfers are served the advertising search engine results. The website visitors see the landing pages that serve the advertising needs of enterprises dynamically, depending on the publisher supply of the advertising ads. Advertising enterprises select the search keywords and keyword phrases to get their presence on websites that publish ads and the resulting content selection is based on the ordinary language meaning of the generic keyword phrases the enterprises use.
For all of these reasons, we would like to keep our domain name.
Yours sincerely,
Ben Johnson
25 January 2016
P.S. Please also see cases below for some references:
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Richard Lanoszka a/k/a Silent Register, Claim Number: FA0901001242244 (Nat. Arb. Forum February 25, 2009)
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Enterprise Group c/o Kadomtsev, Dmitry, Claim Number: FA0810001229429 (Nat. Arb. Forum December 9, 2008)
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company v. Silent Register c/o Richard Lanoszka, Claim Number: FA0711001115193 ((Nat. Arb. Forum January 17, 2008)
This was your actual response to the dispute?
Yes 🙂
That response wasn’t going to win the case for you.
I wish you helped us… We had not enough time… A friend of us helped…But we lost… Domaining is very risky business as we know…
What was wrong with his response?
What kind of response would you have recommended he use (what points did he not address)?
This was our actual response to the dispute… But we lost it…
To be perfectly honest, the only real consistencies I see in these types
of cases is that the CORPORATIONS always seem to come out on
the winning side with a few exceptions where “Big John” is on the
other side defending domainers.
They will take your domain nearly every single time, and there seems to
be little fairness in the matter, and this is I think really hurting the domain industry in general. Especially the registrars because alot of the domainers
I know have lost cases like these and virtually completely stopped registering
domains. Myself included. I dont even want to be associated with the domain industry anymore it has become so corrupt and unfair. If these corporations want every single possible variation and spelling of their names so bad
then why dont they just register them or BUY them? The answer is because
it is cheaper and more rewarding to them to flex their muscle and to send a message by stealing them via UDRP is what I think! and I think alot of people likely agree with this, but just wont say it on this blog …. Anyone?
I agree Jennifer. I am a domainer but treat the UDRP process as a cost of doing business EXACTLY like a store owner factors in THEFT. You just realize that there are criminals (UDRP scum) that will take a portion of your assets. I actually would rather be held up at gunpoint, than sufer the sleazy UDRP process. At least I can understand a gun and desperation. I cant process corporate greed, corrupt unjustice, and slimy lawfirms.
The word enterprise does not have a Trademark for “enterprise” you can’t get one it’s impossible. So how do they win this case with out having a TM on the term. They have it in the .com form but that is useless as everyone knows.
They did not invent this term. Can the owners of StarTrek go after enterpise because of StarTrek Enterprise??
Sure they can. In fact, a number of different companies have a trademark for “enterprise” for various uses.
If you type “enterprise” alone in the uspto.gov no one has a TM on that single word. Now a word plus enterprise, Yes many companies have a TM on word plus enterprise.
Maybe I,m wrong but if you where to type in ‘Hotels” that is not a trademark if it was 1000s of other websites with geo,names or whatever could not use the name with hotel in it. Same example could be used for insurance, loans, booking, mortgage or any type of popular term.
You couldn’t trademark Hotels for a hotel company, but you could trademark it for something unrelated to hotels. Here’s an example of someone trademarking the term “Enterprise”
http://www.trademark247.com/enterprise-76702438-1.html
PPC monetization of domains is a legitimate use. This approach helps defend many UDRP cases where the Complainant simply asserts that the Respondent has “no use” for the domain. That being said, the actual PPC ads shown on a parked domain can most definitely infringe on related marks; due to their “intelligent” design, PPC programs attempt to get very close to what a domain is meant to be about. Always optimize your parked domains by hand to avoid such instances. Some generic-sounding domains can be violating trademarks when parked with particular use. Either develop them or specify alternate keywords for ads.
Well, the UDRP process is thoroughly corrupt as most people know. Complainants much prove 4 elements to prevail. Yet, in actual practice, they prevail with proving none, and hijacking the names with these poor excuses.
If the rules let the complainants steal the names with just this rule, then OK. It would be unethical, but legal. If UDRP were even 1% legitimate, it would be common sense that the complainant first contact the domain owner and ask them to make the change necessary so that their ads dont show up and give them a time period to comply before stealing (I mean doing UDRP – same thing) the names.
UDRP sets the bar (pun intended) on how corrupt the legal process can get.
Its a shady practice, i have seen some people who buy domains related to popular brands just to park them and earn from type in error traffic.
I believe if you pay to register a domain even reguardless
if it is a “typo” it should be yours until it is purchased or paid
for by the disputed party.
If a corporation, or company has a problem with the registration
and wants the domain, they should have to buy the domain
plain and simple.
Just think about it for a minute, the actual registries themselves
will not even give a domain to a corporation or a company
UNLESS they pay to register the domain so why should it be any
different for a domainer? Tell me I am not correct on this.
Go to any registry, and demand a domain registration for free
on the terms that you believe it should be yours and they will
tell you to pay and register the domain, and then it can be!
You can claim rights all you want, but unless you have paid to
actually register or buy a domain — you should NOT in all fairness
rightfully and legally be able to argue it should be “yours” and
you are “entitled” to it.
This whole UDRP deal is a joke, and it is going to be the
obviously downfall of the domain industry, if it is allowed to
continue in the capacity it is currently being “ab”used in.
When it is cheaper to steal a domain from a small time owner
thru UDRP, than it is to buy the domain or outright just defensively
register it in advance, then what do you think is going to happen?
and that is exactly what you are seeing currently. These shady
UDRP cases are pathetic, and are giving the domain industry
a bad reputation and someone needs to put a stop to it.
If you want something — BUY it and pay for it and then it can be
yours! Defensive registration should be encouraged by corporations
and business’s in ADVANCE instead of abusing the UDRP process
constantly.
Many businesses “Enterprise” was registered on LegalFore. They were allowed to be registered.
And “Enterprise.com” rent a car was not the first co. who registered the word “Enterprise”.
Most important, I think the whole trademarkname should read like this “Enterprise-rent-a-car or ” “Or ” “EnterpriseRentACar”
The system has failed on this one.
“Fair Use” is none existent?
Does listing the domain for sale have any effect on UDRP? I mean no PPC. Just the landing page directed to buy.