Why would you park a domain like this one?
There are several reasons that the Chinese owner of F5.net just lost the domain name in a UDRP to F5 Networks, Inc.
But one of them should be a warning for owners of short domains: the ads on the parked page were related to the complainant’s business.
While I believe the overarching conclusion of panelist Warwick A. Rothnie–that the Chinese domain investor was aware of the complainant–is wrong, I also believe parking a domain like F5.net and showing ads is stupid.
Short domains are tradable assets. Parking won’t generate much revenue on most of these domains, and is more likely to hurt than to help you.
Parking a domain can actually help you in a UDRP if you show that you’re displaying ads related to the descriptive nature of the domain. But what’s the descriptive nature of F5? Or similar domains?
I recommend owners of domains like these pass up the few bucks they can make for parking. It’s not worth the risk.
Whats more interesting is he should have hired john Berryhill to represent him with a name like that.
Andrew ,your conclusion re parking I agree with, but might might I add the words “UNLESS the domain owner obtains a TM themselves for the domain for displaying PPC adverts” !!! . Anyone want a trade mark for any domain get in touch and pleased to get one for you for very small fee.
As always: don’t park valuable names. Not worth it indeed…
It looks like f5 was sold twice in the past 6 yrs on namejet.
Sept. 2013 $3,887
April, 2009 $3,121
Damned if you do. Damned if you don’t.
With parking, the domain might show PPC ads for an advertiser who complains. Then, even though it’s the advertiser not the domain owner who puts the ads there, UDRP panelists might seize the domain.
Without parking, meanwhile, UDRP panelists might see lack of legitimate interest … and seize the domain in that case too.
Observing all these nuances about which types of domains can safely be parked and which cannot is impractical for anyone managing sizable inventory. Practicality aside, abiding by these hunches is no guarantee that one’s property is safe. Merely guesswork. There’s no following the “letter of the law” because nowhere are guidelines clearly spelled out. Instead we have only a pile of inconsistent UDRP rulings, many of which are deplorably off base.
Panelists seem to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of domain parking. And that’s unacceptable, since their confusion about how PPC ads are shown results in property being unjustly confiscated.
Far more than the domain owner, it’s the complainant / advertiser who sees to it that they see their own ad on a parked domain. Whether they stumble into their own ad inadvertently or they rig the PPC ad in order to bolster their UDRP case.
Descriptive nature of F5 when I think if it?
Function Key
Specifically as regards Internet Browsers reloading a web page.