GoDaddy user reviews : Good idea to invest in GoDaddy?? Buy Domains -

Get GoDaddy web hosting for just $1.99. Click here to use coupon...

Special $7.49 .COM sales. Click here for this special deal...
Buy Domains is squatting on a domain name which relates directly to our company, a global operation with products in every major market worldwide.

All attempts to resolve this with them have failed.

Today a client of ours accidently went to their site, not understanding the differentiation between various TLD's this has turned into quite a disaster.

So we have decided to launch a test case in Australia.

Early next week we are issuing proceedings in the Australian Legal System against Buy Domains and it's directors.

If the company chooses not to defend it, we will gain a judgement by default, which means any principal of the company entering Australia will be held accountable for the judgement.

We have had a QC look at this situation and have strong legal advice that Buy Domains is devaluing and causing damage to our worldwide reputation.

All contact we have had with Buy Domains has been met with sheer arrogance and disdain. This company has deliberately and maliciously taken a domain which dilutes our business.

We run numerous printing publications around the globe, we have a good reputation and will not have it tarnished by extortionists like Buy Domains.

We have the money to pay their asking price, but this is a matter of principal to us and as such we intend to cause Buy Domains as much pain as we can inflict unless they come to a reasonable settlement.

Watch this space, it's going to be an interesting few months...

Comments (209)

Keep us posted. BuyDomains has begun to get their hands on a very large number of domains (mostly from drop catching)..Maybe bringing your case to life will encourage others who have been affected by their business to take action. I personally don't like BD..

Comment #1

In which way exactly are they cybersquatting, because they have alot of domains? lol..

Comment #2

Is it a generic domain and if so why did'nt you reg it previously, are you another one of those people who think you're the only person in the whole world that is entitled to use those specific words ?

...just asking - There seems to be alot of them coming out the woodwork nowadays.

Whats the domain ?


Comment #3


It would be most helpful if you say what the domain name is.

Then we can know if BuyDomains is indeed squatting...or if you are a covetous late-comer.

Please help us know.

Thank you.


Comment #4

Obtaining a default judgment in a foreign jurisdiction is worthless. file a udrp/wipo or suit in the u.s. if it is really the "principle"...

Comment #5

Those are exactly what I'd like to know as well.

Good luck to you, AdPlus. But unless you're able to demonstrate you have any.

Kind of trademark rights to the term in that domain name, coupled with being.

Able to show how they're possibly infringing it, you have no enforceable claim.


One can definitely feel it's extortion or whatever they believe their principle is..

It doesn't necessarily mean it's true or accurate, especially if certain facts do.

Show otherwise...

Comment #6

"a domain name which relates directly to our company".

Is it a domain that is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark that your company owns, and being used in a bad-faith effort to confuse consumers?.

Or is the domain a generic product name (, for example) that would apply to many businesses? If it is the former then you have a case, if it is the later then you would be attempting to take legitimate property away from the rightful owner...

Comment #7

I do have a feeling this is going to be an amusing thread, but not because of the OP's initial assertions...

Comment #8

Good point and good reason for me to edit my thread. I guess I would not call them huge cybersquatters as I have not sat down and gone through all of their domains (nor will I). But I would consider them one of the larger drop catching companies like snap and enom. I personally think when drop catching such a large number of domains such as these companies do you can rest assured they are getting some with "inc" or "corp" in them. If the name follows the company, thats cybersquatting (ie: or anything similar).

I shouldn't make such quick accusations but I will still say I dislike BD with a smile on my face..

Comment #9


Your post here is very accusing. Its easy to call a company out. If it is so cut and dried then stating the name should not be a problem. If you don't want to state the name why make a post?..

Comment #10

I'm always sceptical about posts like this, will look forward to reading it when the case proceeds. Even if it does happen it sounds like a major waste of legal fees launching a case in a court which has no jurisdiction over the name...

Comment #11

Publicly accusing extortion should get the ball rolling, one way or another..

Comment #12

Well crud.

Can I open a thread and accuse them of hoarding my family name for 10,500+ when no one else wants it or would ever want it?.

If so, then they suck.

Also, I want to make one post and say.....yawn, I am going to bed...

Comment #13

I have a feeling it would be something like the OP owns and BuyDomains owns If there is a TM then BuyDomains might be in trouble, if not then they should be safe...

Comment #14

I have had positive contact with BD over the past few weeks/months/years.

I too would love to hear the name..

Comment #15

Sorry for being a tiny brain here but if you have money to pay them then why don't you just buy your domain name and get over with it?.

It will save your very good reputation around the globe and also not have any bad effects on your worldwide customers.

I think that is the most easiest way.

Now I can't call anyone any names because they took my business name while I myself was sleeping Welcome to the domaining world..

Comment #16

This post is worse than any tm issue pure and simple. Making these accusations so blatently without naming the name shows that the poster has little knowledge of domaining. What planet are you on?.

Pete who owns buydomains is a very nice guy who has more names than most of us put together. He in my opinion knows what names infringe onTm. and I seriously doubt what this poster says is true.

Can a mod change the title to this post please?. It is damaging to buydomains reputation without any backing or any facts! We are professionals here and the way to do business is respectfully. Its fine to make certain statements, but back them up or withdraw the post.


Comment #17

I think that is going a bit far. I do have major doubts about the thread starters claims but lets not paint Buydomains to be the stewards of TM rights either...

Comment #18

Regardless if you, I or buydomains has tm names. To make claims of extortion without even stating the name is a low point for any Namepros thread...

Comment #19

Frankly, this thread is useless without the domain name.

My money's on Buydomains.

And the TS has been a member here for nearly 2 yrs without raising a squeak and now all of a sudden just realised that Buydomains were 'squatting' on 'his' domain...GTFO..

Comment #20

Interesting post - i'd too love to know the name.

Let me get this right - you've initiated legal proceedings in Australia, appointed a QC and are going through a great deal of trouble - but you're not willing to buy the name even though you have the money?.

Seems a little bit odd to me. Have you been offering silly money for a name that is quite obviously worth what is being asked? BuyDomains are usually willing to negotiate - have you not taken this route. I think we also need to realise that they are a Business, and even though they have a lot of names, only a very small % are actually sold.

There are a lot of gaps in your post that in my opinion need to be filled...

Comment #21

The OP has been a member for nearly 2 years now ... has about 70 posts ... also in a thread (old posts) he mentions that his highest sale was for $7500.

Therefore , he is not exactly the not-experienced-with-domains business person that is pissed about a domain-company/domainer and posts a thread to complain.

Though , by his tone ("a domain name which relates directly to our company" and not "a domain containing our brand/trademark") he seems like he is after a domain that is rather generic in nature , otherwise instead of going the lawyer route he would go the UDRP route.

Something seems amiss here..

Comment #22

Good luck enforcing the Australian court judgement BTW. I wonder where the OP got such advice from ?

Comment #23

Where on earth is the OP? I'd like to know the answers to some very good questions that np members have asked...

Comment #24

Who knows yet but it does sound like it it would be nice if the OP clarifies things instead of just hurling insulting accusations with no proof.

Why is it that some endusers seem to think that if they own a CCtld and someone else owns the same in .com (which is usually many years older) then they're a low-life squatter.....very sad.

Probably NOT from a No Win No Fee Lawyer.


Comment #25

For what it's worth ...

BuyDomains has been good, fast, and honest in all my dealings with them.

Over the last 5 years at least...

Comment #26

The op came in and made a post then logged out.

I vote +1 for no more posts in this thread until we know the domain name, otherwise the thread is useless...

Comment #27

I think the title should be left intact. If it causes any damage they (the OP) may have to pay the price..

Comment #28

BuyDomains is usually very cautious when it comes to TM names. They've scoured every portfolio we've ever sent them...

Comment #29

Ross makes a very good point. This poster is no different than a bully throwing stones at a person in a wheel chair. Unless he states the name, he is crying that he wants what another person worked hard to get.

Cry, cry cry...

Comment #30

I've looked through literally 25,000 of their domains making purchases and I've never seen so much as a TM typo. I'm guessing it is a fairly generic name registered before the TM even took effect, and that BD is blowing them off because the OP started off on the wrong foot making accusations and demanding the domain at a low price (or free).

Without the domain I think this thread should be closed, otherwise there's no way to know if this is a legitimate claim or libel. Either way it isn't smart discussing a case that is or will be pending. Your statement about inflicting as much pain as possible could probably be used against you to show it is a frivolous suit...

Comment #31

Ok, in all fairness, it is 5.30 am here in Australia, so I would give the complainent some time to answer the question of "what domain is it"..

As far as I am aware, Australia is a signature, or in agreement with TM law/s that occur wordwide, so a case may be lawful, so to speak. Anyway, I also recommend that the name be put forward, or the allegations withdrawn...

Comment #32

The domain in question is a the exact name of our company and a publication which we have provided to a specific industry for over 20 years.

The domain , as we understand it, used to be used in a way which did not infringe on our rights. However BuyDomains is not holding the domain in good faith and as such we assert our position that the company has no rights to the domain.

We already own the domain in many other TLD's. We have a reputation in our industry and BuyDomains use of the domain is misleading to people trying to find us.

This boils down to good faith. Is Buy Domains running a legitimate web site with the domain ? no. Do we have a global reputation based upon our company name and publication which has a readership base of many thousands ? yes.

Obviously Buy Domains believes they can extort the sum of money being requested for the domain and we could pay it, however this is principal to us and in our Jurisdiction we have some very interesting options open to us.

Buy Domains has contacted me since this thread started so hopefully a resolution can be found, however I refuse to be extorted by a domain squatting company that claims to own 800,000 domains.

Further to my last post, we do not have to register trademarks in Australia to be able to enforce them.

Australian/English law has a concept of the "common law" trademark.

Also to clarify, I am posting using my AdPlus account however the company in question is not related to AdPlus except that I am one of several directors and many shareholders in this Australian company.

When Buy Domains decides one way or the other how to move forward on this I will gladly disclose the domain, it is not as generic as some may think...

Comment #33

I have spoken to Buy Domains today, who have indicated they wish to hand the matter over to their attorneys. Until the matter is resolved one way or another we will continue to vigorously pursue Buy Domains until we reach an amicable settlement.

The domain in question is - we have been running a service in Australia through our printing industry businesses and publications which has been known as Print Links for a period exceeding 20 years. It is only recently that we have decided to move the service to the web, however we have a world wide reputation that we believe will be diluted if is misused now or in the future.

For the record, our Company is also known as Print Links Pty Ltd which was previously a registered business in the state of Victoria and in New Zealand.

The Print Links service has linked printers and printing machine dealers with eachother using publications, phone services and direct marketing since 1989. We assert our rights to the common law trademark of Print Links under English and Australian common law. I have one account. However I am the director of many companies, internet , printing and publishing related. I did not see the need to register a seperate account for this purpose.

Someone in an earlier post mentioned the issue of time zones.

I reside in Australia, thus my activity on namepros is normally limited to a time zone not shared by many members here. However ironically I am currently in Thailand as we launch a Thai Language Publication which relates directly to Print Links.

So my time zones are even more screwed up.

(further to this between the time I started the thread and got back to it here tonight I had spent 16 hours flying from Australia to New Zealand the Australa to Bangkok...

Comment #34

I'm not a lawyer dude but know enough about reading cases to think you do not stand a chance.

1/the domain is generic in nature, consisting of two dictionary words..

2/the parked page has none of your links on it, so they're not passing off.

3/it was regged in 2003 and you yourself admit you just recently got a web presence, seems it's just tough imho. fact someone else owns it gives you no god given right to it in these circumstances.

Imho, swallow your pride and be grateful it is actually for sale, as you say at a reasonable price. if a competitor was using and they had same business name in another country ,and owned or was being used for a completely different purpose you would have to lump it. so my advice is , whilst I understand principles, see the glass as half full, save a big legal bill which will get you nowhere and get the ultimate name for your business which will pay for itself in no time.

Good luck..

Comment #35

Just plane stupid.

Your objective as a business should be to make decisions based on logic not emotion. The domain is only listed at $4,340.00 - for a international business, not an entirely unreasonable price.

Instead of taking a sure bet, your willing to spend thousands on Counsel and time, and risk the possibility of not coming out ahead. What happens if you do fail at acquiring the domain name through legal actions? (Which most of us will believe is likely).

Frankly, in this case, you are the one being irrational. Re-evaluate your options, if the domain is so crucial, pay for it...

Comment #36


I have one account. However I am the director of many companies, internet , printing and publishing related. I did not see the need to register a seperate account for this purpose..


If you only have one account why do you find it necessary to clarify what account you are posting from? Just wondering. Oh, to clarify I'm posting from my WGS_Thunder account...

Comment #37

Sorry bud but the name is pretty generic and to be 100% honest if anyone has an argument at all it would be which has actual TradeMarks...

Comment #38

So basically -.

The domain is very Generic.

You own the

You own the .org.

You own the .info but it does'nt resolve.

You don't have a registered TM.

You don't want to buy the .net off buydomains for $488.

You don't want to buy the .com off buydomains for $4,340.

You have the money but it's the "principal".

Your company name is called Print Links Pty Ltd.

You were slow choosing to put your business online and have now found that the 2 word "generic" domain which according to archives was first registered in 1998 is now for sale and not sitting waiting for you at a registrar.

Its ruining, devaluing, tarnishing and causing damage to your business.

You're too cheap to make a reasonable offer to buy it even though it is only listed for $4,340 and you'd probably be able to buy it for less.

You'd rather insult them in public by calling them squatters, extortionists and you want to make them hurt so you're going to hire a lawyer to get it for you...does that sound about right ?

In this case I think your so called "principals" and general attitude sucks, is the world supposed to just wait for you to catch up, or wake up ?

You are VERY LUCKY it is even listed for sale IMO, there are alot of people who own thousands of generic domains with no interest in ever selling them no matter what you offer.

You're MAD if you go ahead and try to take it IMO.

PS - There is a term for people that behave like you, Reverse Hijacker.

Get real.



Comment #39

Does not seem like an easy win to me. Good luck..

There are other venues available for settling domain disputes, for example the UDRP..

I really think you should seek legal advice from an attorney because your OZ lawsuit just doesn't make sense. Even if you were to win, you've got an unenforceable ruling in your hands...

Comment #40

Amen Gazzip. You can't really believe you have any rights to that name, do you? And you yourself are a domainer? Really?..

Comment #41

This is just awful, the name sounds very generic and then you claim you go as far as to say you have a "common law trademark", ie you don't have a registrered trademark at all...

Comment #42

IMO If this was my company I would feel that the price was a very small one to pay if I thought that much damage could happen.

But........ After this thread and your actions you may find GD may not now wish to sell..

Comment #43

One thing for sure is your product and business has no memory recall here in the States, and your claim is flimsy.

Domainers are very tired of this business bully mentality. As business leaders in the domain world, we see these flimsy outbursts of wanting what others had the foresight to register or buy as funny as a tantrum thrown by children. These kind of actions are now being met with a unified front.

Bully business thats what you have. Go get em Pete, .. grrr..

Comment #44

I am sure that your corporation's attorney(s) will appreciate your money. Quite a bit of it, no doubt.


OK think of it this way.

You own a house. I own a house next door. You live in your house. My house is for sale, but is currently unoccupied.

By your logic, because your house is next door, I should give you my house for free.

Get it?..

Comment #45

I think regardless of whether you have a claim or not on the domain, $4000 seems like a small amount for your company considering you have hired a QC who costs more then that in a day. QCs cost around $550 and hour and 5000$ for a court day IIRC. Why take risks and spend more money when you can just purchase it quickly and easily from buydomains? Now they might not sell for that amount or at all. If I was them I would ask for $50,000 now that I know how much your company wants it and how much money you have...

Comment #46

An amazing display of dexterity and ambidextrous talent to be able to shoot one's self in both feet and ....both hands.


Comment #47

Which is generally only good in the jurisdiction you've used the term as a mark.

For. You can file and try to get a court order, but good luck trying to enforce.

It outside your area.

Unless you can demonstrate you have used the term as a trademark in the US.

Of A, your legal chances aren't necesarily good. But...feel free to try, and I do.

Hope you'll let people here know how things go eventually.

Uh...why did you post about it here exactly?..

Comment #48

I really appreciate some of the comments I am reading here and understand every posters point entirely.

The issue to us is crystal clear. We assert common law trademark rights over the name Print Links. We trade under this name and have only just recently exhibited at drupa, the world largest printing industry exhibition.

The bottom line here is that we are a company built up from nothing over 20 years ago to become a world respected name in the Printing machinery business.

We have been through issues like this before, we are happy to go through them again.

I do resent the typical US brand of arrogance though, the USA is subject to trade agreements between Australia and the US. The protection of intellectual property whether registered or not still exists. US law is largely derived from English law such as Australian Law is also.

In Australia , under common law, it is not required to register a trademark to assert rights. The overwhelming and most subjective test is that of identity and we are identified through our respective printing companies world wide.

Our Print Links service has been running just over 20 years, has put dealers and printers together (much like a matchmaking service) longer than the web has existed.

Many people who have posted in this thread have no knowledge of how the law operates in countries with common law derivative rights, therefore those of you who dont would be quite amazed at the number of remedies available.

It is very simple to commence a civil lawsuit in Australia that would require the respondents to either (a) attend court or (b) subject themselves to a default judgement. If the latter was the case then any prinicpal owner of the target of the suit would find it very difficult to enter Australia without immediately being required to satisfy the judgement.

Now, we have engaged a QC to advise us and we have advice which indicates that the most effective way to deal with this is to commence proceedings inside Australia.

As for the poster who commented about the cost, we are using a very well known law firm in Melbourne who will be taking this on as a No Win, No Fee case. They are interested to trial the merits of this case which may well become a test case which can be applied to several agreements that were made between the US and Australia in the WTO discussions and agreements struck several years ago.

As for the line 'just buy the domain and get it over with' - well we are hard working and tenacious people. We will not be extorted the sum of $4000 for this domain. We have made an offer to compensate Buy Domains for all monies paid by them for maintaining the domain up to this point, I do not know if they will accept this offer yet. However, if the domain passes to any company which offers services such as ours, then Buy Domains is also selling the purchaser risk of litigation and endless hours of bother.

I reject the assertion by some people that we should roll over and die on this issue, Buy Domains has a massive portfolio and lets call a spade a spade, they are in business to squat on and profit from domains that could be legitimately used by others on a grand scale.

Our directors and shareholders along with our business partners are all behind the 'lets make this a matter of principal approach' and rest assured that while we are happy to come to a sensible and FAIR arrangement with Buy Domains we are not going to pay above the mark for something which Buy Domains does not hold in good faith. This is a terrible analogy and specious. It's not even close to the same thing..

Comment #49

Hopefully the court will make the right decisions based on the law. We will see whether your TM is upheld and whether you gain the domain. I think it's very possible that the lawsuit in the Australian courts can be won but it will be very interesting to see what affects it has with BuyDomains being US based...

Comment #50

Personally I still don't beleive much of it, the OP has hired a QC (extremely expensive) yet comes along and posts the whole thing on a public forum.....this is the same person who in this thread is suggesting people don't know about the law. I'm willing to bet that this company will never file a lawsuit against buydomains...

Comment #51

He said that they dont pay the legal fees unless they win..

Comment #52

I think you need to rephrase that statement. To further prove my point, let assume this situation.

1) buydomains own

2) I tell them "oh you squatters you have no right on that domain, you are squatting on it whereas I can legitimately use it and build a site on actors, I will just give you $120 for holding it for 12 years".

Do you think the above is right? You need to know the hard fact that domains were available on a first come first serve basis.

Also, you need to know that by just holding a domain and not using it or just selling it does not make one a squatter. A squatter is one who is holding a domain that is potentially trademarked.

Now, here is what you need to rephrase that sentence to.

"Buy Domains has a massive portfolio and lets call a spade a spade, they are in business of selling domains, at the same time they may also have some domains which are potentially trademarked on which they could be squatting on so that they could profit from it, those domains could be legitimately used by respective trademark owner on a grand scale."..

Comment #53

So what you are saying is that we have no right to publicly vent our frustration at Buy Domains who until the past day acted quite belligerently when talking to us about this domain.

I posted here because this is an interesting issue, one which may affect others and I am happy to share our experience. I am not a domain speculator however I do sell domains from time to time that we have held , developed or no longer require as part of our business model.

As far as our Australian legal action is concerned, do not be misguided - unless Buy Domains do come to a satisfactory and fair agreement for both our respective companies then we will apply the full force of Australian law to protect our interests - this is our right and we will exercise it. We have always maintained that we would be wiling to compensate Buy Domains for all costs associated with them holding the domain, ie: registration and administrative fees - we will not however pay a premium for a domain which infringes on our common law intellectual property.

We didn't turn up yesterday, Print Links is a service which has put printers and printing machine dealers together for 20 years. Just because we are now making further use of the web to develop the market for this service beyond our existing market which has dealt with companies in Australia, New Zealand, Dubai, United Kingdom, United States, Egypt and so on for many many years. Our Print Links news letter is sent by snail mail to over 18,000 customers world wide.

Domains are not held on a first come first served basis where brand names and intellectual property come into effect , if I registered years before Tescos went onto the web I doubt I would hold that name now...

Comment #54

I find it hard to believe you are getting legal advice and posting the whole thing on a public forum, any decent lawyer would be telling you to say nothing yourself, I can see already you've made comments that would assist buydomains.

Further I wonder why about comments like "I have spoken to Buy Domains today, who have indicated they wish to hand the matter over to their attorneys." You've hired a QC yet you are ringing buydomains yourself? When the asset you are fighting over isn't even located in Australia that doesn't count for much...

Comment #55

I just skimmed through this entire thread and most of it doesn't really make sense.

First of all I have a hard time believing is "squatting" like has been said. Then again, it would help to know the actual domain.

The lawyer fees will be higher than asking price, so I am not sure what the point of going to court is. At best you will win a worthless default judgement in a country with no jurisdiction in the matter.

If you feel so strongly about this matter, then file a UDRP. It will actually cost less, and if you have a legitimate case then you can actually get the domain.

EDIT - I just went back and found the domain name in question. There is no legitimate case you could mount for that. The only way you are going to get it is by paying the asking price.


Comment #56

What I would be more concerned abut is a REAL squatter, or an unscrupulous domainer, taking one look at this thread, heading over to then holding you to ransom for all you've got. Or is the domain on hold?.

Nothing will happen with this, that much is clear.

Bmugford: the domain name is

Comment #57

We have obtained a written legal opinion from a QC, which on that basis has led me to deal with Buy Domains directly. When it comes to acting on the QC's advice, then we will let them deal with the matter, our intention is to avoid litigation if possibe...

Comment #58

Doesn't sound that way to me.

I think the first post demonstrates the extent of your personal attachment to this domain and as such I would say your judgement has been compromised. I have looked through your previous posts and you seem to have a decent understanding of what constitutes a TM violation:

I think you have just become too involved with this one.

Best of luck with it and I hope you come to some sort of reasonable settlement with BuyDomains..

Comment #59

Good luck with it, and here are some recommended domain name lawyers

Comment #60

There are several problems with your complaint.

1.) predates your TM, if you even have one. I am not clear what the TM status is. I think it is clear you don't have a TM in the US at least..

2.) The two word name is far too generic in the first place..

3.) A judgment in Australia means nothing as far as actually getting the domain.

You basically have two options to get the domain.

1.) Buy It..

2.) File a UDRP. Although there is no way you will win that.

I understand you are upset, but but you have no legal right to the domain. This is basically a classic case of attempted reverse hijacking...

Comment #61

On the contrary, land law is the closest analogy to domains.

In both Australia and the US, speculators and businessmen bought large amounts of raw land early on (neglecting native ownership, btw). Some made a lot of money, some lost everything they had. There were both advantages and disadvantages to the system, but that was the system. Anyone was free to stake their claim to any place that nobody had claimed before them.

Those who came later could either buy land from the earlier claimants or move on to an area as yet unclaimed.

An earlier claimant purchased If he had not, someone else probably would have. Much "internet land" has now been claimed. That is the system. To Buy Domains that domain is an asset, just like the assets your company owns.


Most of the people on this forum buy domains (internet land) in much the same way that investors buy real estate, attempting to predict the patterns of future growth and demand. Most consider domains that infringe trademarks to be out-of-bounds. I would say that we are still in the early stages of internet land "settlement".

It is probable that Buy Domains was not aware of your company until you contacted them. I strongly suspect that they reacted defensively because they believe your company is wanting to take what Buy Domains considers it's property, without properly paying for it.



All this goes to the point that the internet and domain ownership is still so new that much of the public has very little knowledge about it. And that is both problem and a consequence of the opportunities...

Comment #62

$4,340.00 is really not an insane amount of money for a large successful business. I think you should save yourself a lot of aggro and just buy the domain.

Think of BuyDomains as just 'holding' the domain for you over the years, and you are paying their reservation (and risk) charge for doing so.

Imagine if BuyDomains didnt reg it, and another company did, and instead they used it to promote their business. They might not even sell to you.

If your TM was filed after BuyDomains bought the name I dont think you will win a lawsuit. It's certainly stacked against you.

You have an option to buy it now for a reasonable end-user price. You should take that opportunity - or negotiate a little lower if you can. Just my honest opinion as an observer. I have no bias either way...

Comment #63

I think $4,340.00 is a fair offer to sell.


Comment #64

If I was CEO of this company I would FIRE the directors for wasting.

Time and money debating the merits of a petty business expense based on.

Flimsy premises. What kind of Micky Mouse operation do you people run ?

You should retract your baseless inflamatory statements about BuyDomains.

Imho. I would also make sure the directors paid OUT OF THEIR OWN.

POCKETS the costs and business lost of not taking the domain already...

Comment #65

What would happen if someone else buys this generic domain at the asking price and makes it an adult print link site? Links to Playboy, Penthouse, Big Jugs, etc.

You never know, print may make a cum back!.

Okay, I am done being funny....small price to pay...move on in life..get part of your life back...we only live some many years.

My 2 cents.


Comment #66

This is a great thread.

I think it brings to light the main difference in thought/philosophy that some UDRP cases are based on.

I own a company that has a very generic name but I also use a geo DBA (city+keyword). Even though I started buying domains back in 2001 it never crossed my mind to lock up my DBA until 2005. By that time Yun Yi (Ultsearch) had locked it up and then sold out to Marchex. I went to Marchex to try and buy the domain for way over it's value and was told "not interested in selling".

I'm sure that I could have stomped my feet and caused a little hay but at the end of the day I'm really just pissed at myself for not looking after my business interest in the first place...

Comment #67

Honestly, this claim seems silly to me.

It would be like if I owned and proclaimed publicly that I had rights to because of it.

If your business has been around for 20 years, why has it taken so long to try and buy the ".com"? While country extensions serve a good purpose, there can be no debating that the .com signifies the truest web presence available.

It sounds to me that you feel you are being bullied, when in reality you are trying to do the bullying. The price they wanted for the .com seems like a drop in the bucket for a 20-year company. Especially since names with no generic meaning go for way more than that in an open auction.

Just my opinion of course...

Comment #68

Basically you're doing business pretty much like Buydomains, albeit on a different scale.

So where do you draw the line ?

I have doubts as to the validity and enforceability of your TM, at least outside Australia. It's not as distinctive as Tesco, as per your example..

Your case looks flimsy so consider your options very carefully. Your actions could backfire. By the way I checked the printlinks domain and I do not see any sponsored ads that directly compete with your business. Actual use of the disputed domain is one thing to take into consideration as well. If you are so confident why don't you just file a UDRP or a lawsuit in the US, where Buydomains are based ? This would make more sense.

Let me guess... you are banking on the fact that .au is among the tightest TLDs on the planet, and hope that the local judges will lend a sympathetic ear to your claims ?

I would love to hear what John BH thinks about it...

Comment #69

What I find most strange is that all this is being debated in public. Like other people here have said, things that you have said here might come round and bite you, such as publicly accusing a company of extortion and there may be other things you have said. A very strange way of proceeding in what is essentially a legal matter between yourself and BD. I can only imagine you have other motives.

There are many definitions of extortion but here are a couple.

"Obtaining another's property by actual or threatened force, fear or violence.".

"to obtain property or money by the use of violence, threats or intimidation".

Extortion implies some kind of threat, violence or initimidation. Surely you are opening yourself up to being countersued by BD for libel?..

Comment #70

Here's what's going to happen. Buy Domains will fight your silly claim because it has a reputation to uphold. Just like it (successfully) did with

BuyDomains has a rock solid reputation with regards to trademarks for a reason. I'm sure they deal with claims like these every day from someone who wakes up one morning and realizes they don't have the domain they want. They're a big company with the resources to fight, and they're not stupid...

Comment #71

"As for the line 'just buy the domain and get it over with' - well we are hard working and tenacious people. We will not be extorted the sum of $4000 for this domain.".

As a domainer yourself do you really think that $4000 is extortionate for a worldwide GENERIC brand name????.

Here's an interesting quote from on the wayback machine circa 1999:.

"Today's Latest :.

Our change of name from PrintLinks to The Link-4-Print Magazine..

Due to the fact that a company in the USA already used the name PrintLinks, and the fact that The Print Links Magazine did not want to be associated with that company in any way. We have changed the magazine name to The Link-4-Print. This change was not done because of Copyright Laws, as we are a British company and PrintLink is based in the USA, but done so no confusion would be caused.".

Is your company Printlink?.

Are Printlink still in existence?.

If they are then they would maybe have more of a case themselves IMHO.

Food for thought Ladies and Gents, food for thought......


Comment #72

P.s. why has it taken the company 20 years to realise that it should have a .com presence online????.

Not questioning the company's success just curious....


Comment #73

What's really weird is it seems wasn't regged until this week on August 24, 2008.

Same with the .ORG and .INFO extensions which were regged a day earlier on August 23, 2008.

Imagine that.

This 20 year old Australian company didn't even reg their own version of .COM until just this week.

Then they have the incredible nerve to tell BuyDomains that all they will pay for "their" coveted domain is the reimbursement of registration fees.

And an allowance for administrative costs.

Very sporting of you Mr.King.

Go back to sleep, please.


Comment #74

We have seen even more generic domains lost to UDRP and I believe if what AdLinks is saying is correct he could very well win this...

Comment #75


After all this the o/p should be grateful it is even for sale and they are still prepared to sell it imho.

Domains regged this week lol..

Comment #76

Yes it appears so although I'm not sure how the reg date works, he also just regd the .asia.

Says it all does'nt it .....This thread is pretty shocking considering that the OP also sells domains LOL At least he got this bit right. waky waky.


Comment #77


OP: be careful, everything you write can be used against you..

BTW BD attends this board too...

Comment #78

There is always "the possibility" but it's a very silly gamble IMO.

If this was my domain I'd just take it off the market as soon as I read his first post.


Comment #79

Buy Domains' lawyers probably appreciate every here for doing research for them for free.

Here's a tip: if you're going to take legal action against someone, don't post about it in a forum...

Comment #80

Strange to me that a company doing business for 20 years has not bothered to protect it's name with a trademark other than common law, has never considered buying the domains until just recently. With a generic name like that, and a web presence that does not appear to infringe on any common law trademark, and an apparent lack of interest in the names until very recently, I seriously doubt that your attempt at reverse hijacking will succeed...

Comment #81

Yup. That's why I asked AdPlus why he's posting about it here, although he's.

Supposedly gathering feedback.

Then again, not surprising if BuyDomains is doing that here as well...

Comment #82

Tried to poker face the wrong company, thats what you did.

We are going to see a whole lot of these bully types who yell real loud that the name infringes on their business. Some panicky types will fold under pressure. This time you are playing outside your field of expertise.

Well sir, your ante...

Comment #83

I recently tried to find on the web a big international supply company that I used to do business with in Seattle. Ten years ago their catalog was half an inch thick - probably twice that big now. They have no website. None. I guess they are used to doing business by phone and mail. Inertia.

We tend to forget that many many business owners are still not online...

Comment #84

This is quite easy to explain and I have said it before in this thread.

Print Links is a PUBLICATION which first appeared in November 1989. The move to the net for this publicaton is new and so is it's restructure.

Print Links is known worldwide in the Printing Industry dealing with many thousands of printers and printing machine dealers world wide.

Again, we have solid legal advice that Print Links is an identifiable brand in the industry in which it operates and as such our common law trademark rights in Australian and English law are absolute...

Comment #85

This is sooo cool. My father has had a uk biz for many years called.


Yay that means he can now go online with this and claim the name.

Ok hands up who owns this............Hand it over..

Comment #86

This entire thing is silly. It is a waste of time, effort, and money. I still fail to see how is extorting anything.

You just regged the domains a few days ago, and only recently if ever applied for a TM. Even if you own a TM, it is in Australia where there is no jurisdiction.

Basically you contend they are squatting on a rather generic 2 Word Domain, that was regged 10 years ago.

It makes no sense...

Comment #87

OP has admitted that his lawyers are taking this case on a " no win no fee" basis which indicates they are trying to set a precedent for the common law enforcements on trademarks which is highly unlikely visavis as it pertains to domains.

This is not a clear cut case of trademark infringement or malicious use of a trademarked name or even plain old domain squatting.

Like for e.g. olympics which has seen a rash of names being registered at the time of the olympic games.

Public debate is highly welcome as it gives a chance for newbies and experienced domainers alike to learn something from this...

Comment #88

I can't believe any lawyer would take this case to be honest. It boggles my mind that a case so flimsy would be taken on by any reputable lawyer in the first place.

There is no merit to the claim that is extorting anyone. If I was I wouldn't even offer this domain for sale anymore, at least not to someone who is accusing them of extortion on a public forum.

Accusations of extortion are very serious, and require a higher burden of proof than flimsy claims.


Comment #89

Why does this thread feel like a advertisement and why does the OP's answers always document how old and how well known his company is ? Seems like free publicity to me and a spotlight for a minute move....could be just me but thats how this thread reads to me..

Comment #90

I just had the exact same feeling as you did. I was thinking what a great why to promote a new website. Create a highly debated thread to draw traffic.

But, regardless of the reason, it is very dangerous throwing around accusations of extortion with this little support of the claim.


Comment #91


I have given some well thought comments prior to this , in this thread, I now think we have reached the point where everyone could benefit from and appreciate some ................

Comment #92

Lol, I just sent some domains to BuyDomains, wonder if they will buy from me....this thread isnt bad publicity for BuyDomains thats for sure...

Comment #93

LMFAO... thanks ... Looks alittle like adam dicker to me No offence intended..

Comment #94


For me, Adam looks more like the Shawshank GovernorOld 'fuzzy breeches'..

Comment #95

Couple of observations on both sides ...

1. Posters here are wrong that "PrintLinks" is a generic, and consequently not subject to protection. PrintLinks could easily be categorized as a suggestive mark (inherently distinctive).

2. True that trademark rights, even if established, can be restricted geographically. The poster is correct that rights (assuming they exist) can be enforced even if there is no registered trademark as of yet.

3. I agree that the recent registrations are suspicious, and so is posting here before the case had a chance to resolve itself. That the poster did not register the .us suggests that he is trying to operate within registration guidelines.

4. I see there is a "PrintLink" (singular) operating in the US. Appears they might have rights here in the US that would supercede the poster's US rights. Both companies appear to be operating in the same field or classification of goods/services...

Comment #96

PrintLink specializes in employment within the printing industry and we specialize in linking dealers, manufacturers and printers.

PrintLink and PrintLinks have mutual interests through respective memberships of printing industry associations. Posters who have suggested that this thread is a cheap marketing stunt are mistaken. I saw this as a legitimate issue of discussion. We did not even mention the domain until pressed to do so by others interested in this thread.

Posters are correct that our domain registrations are recent, Print Links, as has been re-iterated many times before in this thread has not been web based.

Nobody would suggest that McDonalds should not protect it's branding rights because it operated for decades before it went online.

For those posters that think this is all "huff and puff" do not underestimate our commitment to gaining ownership of this domain on a fair basis and one which is compatible with the laws in our jurisdiction.

In response to the posters that suggest that geographically we have no claim, agreements exist between Australia and the United States which offer avenues of enforcements. The Australian Trade Practices Act provides numerous remedies especially where the respondent to actions is found to have acted unconscionably...

Comment #97

You might think you have a legitimate right to the domain - At best you have a borderline case. However claiming "Extortion" is just flat ridiculous...

Comment #98

Expressing an opinion is neither libel nor slander in the jurisdiction I am posting from.

I hold the opinion that a company which is trying to extract thousands of dollars for something that it has no right to own is extortion. This is my opinion and I remain entitled to hold it.

Furthermore, I will gladly take any heat any poster wishes to apply to myself, we are tenaciously pursuing this issue to the end. The issue isn't going away and as a matter of record, since this thread started Buy Domains have been communicating with us in a courteous and professional manner despite our differences of opinion on the issue...

Comment #99

I'm going to apologize for my flip comment early in the thread. Though my opinion is the same I will respect what is seemingly sincerity.

May I ask a some what personal question? May I ask if you have not already spent $4k in your time on this matter? You must be in a decent income bracket and I can hardly understand the enormous passion being displayed and displaced over this. Perhaps the lack of emotion has it's advantages at times. I'm certain most of the NPs members that have posted have honestly tried to see the logic in your school of thought.

Buy Domains, imho, is not harming the name's value. To me it would seem they have somewhat protected it. No porn of questionable history. You do have the option of buying it.

For just a moment imagine how you would feel if I said..."Hey Mates, I just bought a great name for only 4k" and you realized the names was gone. By the very fact you are claiming a value on the name could lend credence to a third party seeing this as an "opportunity". If you know what I mean.

I would suggest, as many NPs members already have, that you buy the name and quit wasting your valuable time. Retract the comment about extortion. Libel or not it is unjustified. You asked them to sell .... they did not ask you to buy.

I sincerely wish you the best of luck in this matter. And again ... I do apologize for my previous comment. I can see now this a deeply passionate issue.


Comment #100

So you've decided to smear them publicly in an attempt to force their hand.

Care to answer my previous question: why don't you use the proper venue for settling domain disputes, either UDRP or possibly a US lawsuit ? .

Why do you insist on taking a huge chance on an unproven venue ? .

The lawyers you have retained may be capable, but do they specialize in intellectual property issues ? You think you've got the upper hand but it could be that you're just a guinea pig...

On a side note I also find it mind-boggling that an established company like yours waited until 2008 to secure it's own domain names... even the Tardiness does not bestow any particular privileges or compensations upon you...

Comment #101

Sooo ...

- you are after a domain that is 2 generic words (and not a distinctive made-up word , like google).

- you waited until 2008 to go online.

(I don't suppose you have another company named "PrintSupplies" or something , do you ? ... because BuyDomains owns that one too).

- you asked a QC friend of yours what do and you mention it like you hired a lawyer (where I post from , we can also express opinions).

- and you want to cause pain ... "as much pain as you can inflict" lol.

Basically you are just trying to put the pressure on BuyDomains so that they give up the domain for a lower price ("because you think they might want to get over with all the lawsuit fuss").

You call them extortionists while YOU try to "extort" a lower price by coming to a public forum and threaten with lawsuits.

Look ... we understand your concerns ... but if someone wanted to buy your services at cost because he pretended he has rights to them , threatened with lawsuits or pretended he did not know their market value , I don't think you would bulge either..

Comment #102

I agree with Arnie, this thread is popcorn material.

The one question I do have is this: Given that the entire thread is based on legal concerns, why have the mod's NOT moved this thread to legal???.

Personally I would love to hear what Elvis has to say about this thread. "Elvis is in the building", but He hangs out in the legal forum... and is actually qualified to speak on legal matters...

Comment #103

True, It could be alot worse like

"McDonald's promote their food as 'nutritious', but the reality is that it is junk food - high in fat, sugar and salt, and low in fibre and vitamins. A diet of this type is linked with a greater risk of heart disease, cancer, diabetes and other diseases. Their food also contains many chemical additives, some of which may cause ill-health, and hyperactivity in children. Don't forget too that meat is the cause of the majority of food poisoning incidents." Cool, thanks, that's very nice of you AdPlus. REP added.

Did I mention ...Cheap Reverse Hijacker ......shame on you I sincerely Don't !.


Comment #104

I had something here...but I'm not a legal eagle...

Comment #105

It would seem it's in Buy Domains best interest to defend this vigorously. I can't see them caving in to this demand as it may set a dangerous precedent. I may be wrong, I'm not a lawyer but think this is just common sense...

Comment #106

Thats pretty presumptive. I still dont buy the argument that your the only ones entitled to own this domain name. The domain name is two generic words put together - as pointed out above it's not like "Google" or "Toyota".

I find it amusing that you feel your the only company with rights to that domain name. What if I started a small company here in town and called it - bought the domain name from BuyDomains and began operating under it in a different capacity then what you are?.

What if I'm a local printer repair shop?.... do I not have rights either?.


Comment #107

You can't - Your too late, looks like someone else bought it !! LMAS.


Comment #108

Oh dear, look what I'v started ....I was only joking, a play on the wording of spades post but aimed at the OP.



Comment #109

AP you do not seem to know the definition of the word 'extortion' - as mentioned previously, extortion involves fear, initimidation, violence or threat of violence, are you saying you have been made to feel afraid or threatened with violence?..

Comment #110

I think domainers and domain investors/speculators on the whole should be hoping for a negative result for the OP in this case.

If by chance he does win this case it opens up a whole new, and very dangerous precedent, that will make the Snowe Bill look like a storm in a tea cup. Our intellectual property will become fair game to all and sundry laying claims to generic names. Reverse hijacking could be the way most of us lose our domains if this works out for the OP.

As a fellow Australian I am somewhat disgusted by the tactics displayed by the OP and I do sincerly hope that you get your arse handed to you in court proceedings.

BTW...I am a commercial printer by trade and have been for a little over 20 years, and I have never heard of you or your business at all. Not sure what that says about your

I'm usually for the little guys in a case against one of the big boys, but in this case I say let the stomping begin.


Comment #111

Again thankyou for everyones comments, pro or anti our stance.

What I do find disturbing though is the fact that while some posters may not agree we have a case that it seems some opinion exists we have no rights to pursue it.

We may win, we may lose, but in a western democracy with our laws we surely all have the right to prosecute cases we feel strongly about.

As for why PrintLinks did not go online until 2008, it is a TRADITIONAL PUBLICATION and while I am a director of many on and offline businesses I am not always in control of which company does what.

The QC we obtained a legal opinion was not a friend, he is an eminent IP specialist barrister in Australia.

Furthermore, this is not only about Buy Domains, this is also about protecting our brand in the future also, which means we will vigorously protect our brand.

Again, thanks everyone for the comments, good or bad, but please dont let this post descend into a flippant exchange of 'smart ass' posts...

Comment #112

By "traditional publication", I am assuming that you are implying printed journals. If so, are said journals called "printlink".

I only ask because, as I stated above, that I have been in the print industry for a little over 20 years. The current company I work for has been in business in one incarnation or another for a similar period of time. I am uncertain if I have ever seen any of these said publications, if print links is what they go by.

Also I can't ever recall seeing your stand at any of the large print industry shows (i.e. Printpak) and I was wondering if your publications come under some different name.

As for some of the comments, what do you expect when what you are persuing a case that potentially opens a pandoras box for some people that actually make their living from this industry?.

Personally, I believe you should just pay the $4k and be done with it.

Once again...JMHO..

Comment #113

Wow, this is so weird. I once held a company LLC called Myron's Sugar Nutrients...

Comment #114

Actually I think someone could get away with owning Toyota, it's a common surname in Japan I believe. It could be something like if someone owned it...

Comment #115

The fact remains that you are demanding that a domain with 2 generic terms be handed over to you for peanuts.

Don't you understand that the person that registered that domain (5 years ago) was not trying to steal anything from you , he just registered a nice phrase that he thought might have value to resell.

Also , since BuyDomains can use the domain without infringing on your rights (even by putting a simple page with links for people to print photographs) they don't have any obligation to sell the domain to you at the price that YOU want.

I said "QC friend of yours" because by your coming public with such an issue and using words like "extortionists" , "squatters" and "cause pain" , it seems that you just casually talked to a lawyer friend of yours about the matter , since any person in the legal profession would advise you to not talk about the case publicly especially using phrases like "we want to cause as much pain as we can inflict".

As I see it you are just trying to "pressure" BuyDomains to sell cheap by causing a fuss so as to make them think "let's accept the lower price so as to get it over with" ... otherwise you would just sue the company and not come to a forum to talk about it..

Comment #116

The right to attempt to prosecute shouldn't extend to frivolous suits.....

Comment #117

Pay attention here fellow domainers, this is the ugliness peering into our window of domains. Boasting, attacks, loud noises and media attention, all garnered to scare the lowly domainer to sign off to what is rightly ours.

Some people or companies will be working on hundreds of scare tactics all at the same time to garner massive ownership of domains.

In many instances these bullies get what they want. Maybe this is just one attempt of many to steal a domain?. I am sure many domain owners will panic and "push" the requested domains without a fight to the Corporation or those who call themselves a Corporation.

The blaring question that has us scratching our heads is why a business leader in the printing world with large resources would resort to threats in a public forum for a domain costing less than a crappy used car.

Your ante sir!..

Comment #118

This could go either way, imo.

As domain owners/investors/speculators, we may not enjoy the prospects of a claim like this succeeding, but, lets not allow our wish that it fails to cloud the judgement that it may succeed.

First, Jurisdiction - As I understand it, Intellectual Property rights are mutually protected in each other's jurisdictions under the recent Australia-US Free Trade Agreement. An IP judgement in either Australia, or the US, may well be fully enforceable in the other country.

Also, there are many IP agreements within the WTO, that both the US & Australia are signatories to.

I wouldn't assume that jurisdiction is necessarily a problem here.

Next, as I understand it, there have been several cases where domains have been taken from owners on the basis of business 'Common Usage' names, or 'Reputation' (or, the like) associated with a name....If the OP can establish successfully (in a court, or UDRP) that the business, 'PrinterLinks', is a name of 'Reputation', and known 'Common Usage' within the specific industry segment within which it operates - and BuyDomains cannot establish this for their own use of this name - then, the OP may very well win this, and be awarded the name, on the basis of a more meritorious claim to it.

This would be especially so if the business, Printer Links', can show (as the OP has indicated) that it suffers losses as a result of confusion about the name - ie clients, and potential clients, of theirs that type-in '' (owned by BuyDomains) with a resultant confusion, or loss of business to them (the business, PrinterLinks)...

In this case, if BuyDomains cannot show a good reason to own the name that causes a loss to the business, PrinterLinks, then they (BD) could be judged to be acting in bad faith.

I've got no axe to grind here, but, it'd be unwise to make our own investment decisions about domains we buy/own assuming that what's happening in this case has no chance at all.


Comment #119

I am thinking the negative, also incuring millions of dollars in TM...

Comment #120

Good luck in quantifying the financial loss.

Boohoo, so a user went to the website on the .com instead of (reg'd 8/24/2008) and couldn't find his way back...

Loss of reputation, devaluing and causing damage to our worldwide reputation blabla...

The company did not even have a website 7 days ago. LOL!.

I would think any court would be asking what they were doing (apart from sleeping at the wheel) in all this time up 'til now in protecting it's good name on the internet, given it was only 'yesterday' (less than 7 days ago) that they just about reg'd a bunch of domains including the ccTLD - that corresponds to the name of their business that no-one in the print industry even in Australia has seemingly ever heard of.

In addition, "Print Links" is not even a reg'd trademark in Australia.

And while common law rights might exist for famous entertainers, for a business (of 20 yrs) not to have a trademark severely weakens it's case.

Do a google search for "Printlinks" - and another company with same name, Printlinks Inc. based in Illinois, comes up..

How come you're not defending the company by suing them for tarnishing reputation and brand, eh?.

And here's a UK company of the same name:

So much for the notion that the OP's company has sole worldwide rights to the term, is world famous or even distinctive.

Last I heard, ignorance or ineptitude in defending any brand name is no defence..

Case dismissed.

This is nothing more than a BS naked frivolous attempt to publicly bully Buydomains in settling quickly or getting the domain for peanuts.

This will never get to court IMO.

"It's a matter of principle" = It's about the money..

Comment #121

We will see what happens with the owner of, payed $80k for it and has it parked...just waiting for Toyota to come and take it?..

Comment #122

OK, now I have another question for you..

Is THIS your company ? Am I correct that you filed your company name for registration on 23 Aug. 2008, that is no later than last week ?

No smartassing here, just a fair question. You say you've been trading for some time, then I can only assume it was as DBA (or in your basement...), which would explain your lack of notoriety..

This is one thing you should be able to explain. If not to us, to Buydomains's lawyers.

I think everyone here is trying to understand your point of view, but my feeling is that you are pushing it too far. Your claims increasingly look like a reverse hijacking attempt that is going to backfire. Yeah, did you notice how end users tend to think that just because their favorite name is long gone, they were personally targeted ?

Comment #123

Nice post, That's exactly what seems to be happening here and if you let people get away with this kind of unreasonable behaviour then it'll get alot more common.

I have had a "large corporation" trying the same thing and sending me demanding emails for the last two years for a domain thats listed for under 2K, same thing - they own other extensions and they want my .com.

So far I have just totally ignored them due to their snotty ignorant attitude, had they been reasonable in their communications they'd probably have the name by now, had they been very nice they would have got it for $100.

.... If they get anywhere near as insulting as the OP has been then it's off the market and not for sale at any price...makes no odds to me as it's earning a profit. I'm honestly trying my best but it ain't easy, I detest bullies with a passion. Pffft, please. would'nt that be something if it is indeed correct.


Comment #124

If it is a distinct made-up word I understand their concern ... but if it is a generic word (/generic words) can't they see that a nice domain can have many different legitimate uses (/possible buyers) and that it was not registered because of them or just to spite them ?

... or ... can't they understand that it has a higher value than just registration costs ?

In an open economy , supply and demand defines the price , not cost plus a couple of cents..

Comment #125

But in this case, even if it was a made up word I would lean more towards the domain name holder than the business owner, considering that the business apparently has never even been heard of by people in the business owners country in the same field... I mean it's not like registering "google" or "polaroid" (sp), and while everyone should do due diligence in checking for trademarks (common law or other wise) you can only search so much when a company is no where to be found on the internet and apparently only filed as a company the other day, LOL.

In a few words: I think there is more here for BuyDomains to defend with than just the fact that the domain is fairly generic, I mean even if the name of the company was Printopia (and the domain in question was (a made up word- possibly a real company) I still think BuyDomains would still have a very good shot of defending it in this case...

Comment #126

HeyGeek - of course , I agree.

If the date of registration predates the date the company was founded.

If the company is not widely known (registrant had no knowledge of the company when he registered the domain).

If the domain is used in a different industry.

All can play a part whether the registrant has legitimate rights to a name (generic or made-up) or whether he registered it in bad faith.

In the previous post , I was just referring to the known trademark made-up word..

Comment #127

As has been explained before, Print Links is a service/publication, owned and operated by a very respected Australian Printing Machinery company, which has been spun off into it's own entity as the Print Links service becomes a company in it's own right. The associated company providing the service did not even have it's own internet site until last year.

Our service was conducted solely by telephone, publication, newsletter and positions at trade shows etc.

The Print Links brand is now owned, controlled and managed by Print Links Pty Ltd which also owns several other associated brands that have recently merged into one and simultaneously placed onto the internet.

I am not going to name the full list of shareholders in Print Links Pty Ltd, anyone wishing to do a company search can find this out if they wish however suffice to say that 10% of the company is owned by one of the most reputable printing engineering companies in Australia and the largest joint shareholder and also company secretary of Print Links Pty Ltd is one of the directors of this very same company. With a family history going back 40 years in the Printing Industry.

The heritage of our company stems from several businesses which have dealt by way of handshake and a deal is a deal. Moving these businesses to the web has been a huge progression however THIS DOES NOT take away from the fact that our service, operating many many years, will not succumb to outrageous demands of cash from a business which sits on thousands of domains just to speculate. In this case, Buy Domains has infringed on our rights which, if not settled, will be vigorously tested...

Comment #128

Outrageous demands? Did anyone demand anything from you? If you don't like the price then don't buy it..

Your subscription for this thread has been removed...

Comment #129

Ignorant comments such as the above are the reason that you are getting such vehement opposition in this thread.

Especially since:.

1. the amount they are asking for the domain is hardly "outrageous".

2. "sitting on thousands of domains just to speculate" is a very respected business model, there is nothing "wrong" "shady" or "dirty" about what BuyDomains does, they are a business.

And 3. It is VERY obvious that BuyDomains probably (most certainly) registered the domain because of it's generic nature and meaning, and in no way because of your companies publication. (which is why statements like "Buy Domains has infringed on our rights" are so, so, SO inherently stupid and anger provoking). AMEN AMEN AMEN!..

Comment #130

The first thing you do wrong is that you don't respect BuyDomains as running a legitimate business.

Registering some of their domains so many years back required vision (about the expansion of the internet) ... a lot of expenses (registrations , organizational , etc) ... and big investment risk (eg. if the internet changes radically).

In a similar manner a real estate company uses it's funds to "speculate" on properties many of which it does not develop straightaway.

Since you ask for respect in the conversation , you should think twice before coming in a domain forum and trying to demoralize the business practices of people that have spend a lot of money to buy a small/large amount of domains for legitimate business/resale/development (especially since you have sold some domains yourself in the past , as you said).

Since there are other uses for two generic words like Print Links (in a similar manner there are many uses for egCar Links) , why do you consider those words (and the domain) as your property ?

They did not register that domain to deprive it from you and they did not steal it from you ... from what you mention Print Links could even just have been a column or a supplement in a publication and you are trying to develop it independently after it was "spinned off".

As I see it there is no need to go back and forth in the same issues.

If you think you should sue BuyDomains , just sue them , because I don't think they will bite with all these threats and give up the domain to you or give it up for peanuts.

I think that they (and their legal team) had hundreds of similar cases and know how to defend their domains.

You think that you appear as a valiant knight ... but actually you just appear like a person who is just complaining about spending $4000 (trying that way to lower the purchase price) because the managers of the "brand" he bought were "sleeping on the wheel" back in 2003..

Comment #131

There appear to be two and possible three acts committed by the OP that may be actionable (where the OP would be a defendant):.

1.) The threat of legal action by the OP without actually following up on the suit is commonly known as "Barristry", and is actionable. This is harassment of Buydomains unless you actually follow through with your threat of lawsuit (where you would probably lose anyway IMHO). When you threaten somebody with a suit, you force that person into a situation that they are required to hire an attorney to defend the suit, even if it is frivolous (and therefore likely to be thrown out of court). You know for a fact that Buydomains lawyers are already spending billable hours on YOU. It is only reasonable that those costs are recovered if YOU lose your case or do not file your case.

2.) from your own statements:.

Now let's look at the definition of extortion (from American Heritage) The threats and intimidation are coming entirely from the OP. Do the math.

3.) Numerous accusations of extortion by the OP in a high traffic public forum, seriously damaging the reputation of Buydomains in it's target market...

Comment #132

The OP's ability to post hasn't really been removed, has it? If so, that would mean NP was practicing the worst kind of censorship, and that's not what NP is all about.

Edit: I understand the OP's ability to post was not removed...the post I quoted was not intended to mean that.....

Comment #133


It would make sense that it's true.

It was just right after that he decided to register domain names.

Patrick AdPlus,.

There is so much rebuttal I would like to post about your comments but I don't think you are worth the time it would take.

However, I am going to show you an example of a role model you should have followed.

I just learned of this.

It involves the domain name - - and BuyDomains.

This is the course of action you should have pursued.

It is an excerpt from Peter Askew's domain blog, The Domainer's Gazette.

The posting was made today, August 31, 2008.

You can read all of it here:


"One of the folks who joined us had just opened up a new pizza joint in Oxford - right off the downtown square.

The moniker he chose for his new venture? Square Pizza. Aptly named.".

And it continues:.

"Now, this fellow aint a domainer, but he understood the value of a domain name. So, prior to his business opening, he went domain shopping for, and discovered that it was taken. But he did recognize BuyDomains had it for sale.

At this point, he could have easily scurried to .net, .org, .biz, .me, or .whatever. But he didnt. A non-domainer understood the value of .com. And so - he wisely negotiated the price down, and eventually spent a few hundred dollars to acquire it.

A smart business decision? You Bet.".

He didn't threaten to sue.

He didn't libel BuyDomains.

"he wisely negotiated the price down".

And that's what you should have done!.


Comment #134

4,340.00 USD??.

Is that what this fuss is all about? Just pay for it if you want it...

Comment #135

What is the point of this thread?.

File your suit.

ABN: 38 475 119 827.

ABN status: Active from 16 Oct 2002.

Entity name: MOURADE, GEOFFROY J Entity type: Individual/Sole Trader.

Main business location.

State: NSW.

Postcode: 2089.

Trading name(s).


ABN: 36 146 130 639.

Last modified: 01 Jul 2004.

ABN status: Cancelled from 01 Jul 2004.

Entity name: SOLITO, PAUL LUIGI.

Entity type: Individual/Sole Trader.

Main business location.

State: SA.

Postcode: 5081.

Trading name(s).


For business name BN98181764 - PRINT LINKS SYDNEY.


Business name: PRINT LINKS SYDNEY.


Registration number: BN98181764.

(iii) Registration details:.

Date registered: 17/11/2005.

Registration status: REGISTERED.


Renewal due date: 17/11/2008.

Npcomplete's basic points are well-taken, and Australian law is particularly tougher than US laws on the general subject of defamation and threats of legal action.

This guy has an anonymous lawyer whom he claims to have rendered an opinion, and apparently provided him with no advice whatsoever on the subject of making public threats and defamatory statements. Some lawyer he's got there.

Ah, here we are:.

ABN: 39 026 527 516.

Last modified: 06 Aug 2008.

ABN status: Active from 01 Jul 2004.

Entity name: KING, ROBERT JAMES Entity type: Individual/Sole Trader.

Main business location.

State: VIC.

Postcode: 3198.

Trading name(s).

Print Week News Australasia.


Ask Robert.

Sootica Web.

Bad case of tapeworms, apparently. Name a few...

Comment #136

I am glad jberryhill weighed in on this. He is as good of a domain lawyer as you can find...

Comment #137

You have just searched for an ABN that has nothing to do with Print Links Pty Ltd. Try searching the ASIC register and look at who the owners of Print Links are, then you will understand the longevity of the some of the company's stakeholders in this industry.

As for publicly announcing an intention to place a matter before the courts, this is not an actionable offence in Australia in either civil or criminal jurisdiction. We are well within our rights to signal our intention to pursue a case, it is up to the court of jurisdiction to determine the outcome.

My personal ABN is not associated with Print Links Pty Ltd in any way, other than I am using my AdPlus registered Namepros account to raise the issue. The fact that I have a private business also in the Printing Industry has no bearing.

As has been stated many times before in this thread, the foundation upon which the matter is being pursued is the Brand, not the company name. It seems to me that there is a complete ignorance amongst US based posters about the foundations of common law and what common law trademarks are.

There is NO REQUIREMENT in Australia to register a trademark while retaining the right to take action against those you believe have infringed upon it.

Company Names and Trade Marks are not related in Australian law. They are handled by seperate government bodies and the only inter-relationship that may arise is in the case of breaches in the Trade Practices Act relating to passing off or misleadiing and deceptive naming. Further more there is a disctinction between registered business names and company names, which is also very different from the systems applying to business in the US.

The previous owners of the Print Links brand (which was actually us but we have now gone under a restructure) successfully sought de-registration of an Australian Business Name when such an issue occurred.

In conclusion, a formal letter of demand has been prepared today proposing a confidential settlement of this matter with Buy Domains. Should it transpire that the mater not settle within a certain time frame then once proceedings are issued the matter becomes sub judice and no further comment will be made by us until the matter is resolved one way or the other.

Whether Buy Domains choose to comment at some time in the future is a matter for them...

Comment #138

Hopefully your proposal includes you giving them their asking price for the domain, that's really the only thing they are likely to accept, and to be honest I would be surprised if they were even still willing to sell the domain now that you have tried bullying them into giving it to you, I know I wouldn't be.

Also, just something to keep in mind: you have obviously hit a nerve with your thread on this subject (I know it's gotten me pretty angry) and there are at least a few domainers here that have money to burn, I wouldn't be surprised at all if someone was to give BuyDomains their $4400 dollars for the domain (it's really not THAT much money) and then just let the name sit, just to spite you. I'm not saying I would do that.. but it may be wise to ask yourself how much the domain is really worth to you.....

Comment #139

Yeah ... I hope you do take it to court personally and lose ... and then I hope Buy Domains sells it to someone else or keeps it. Companies that lack the foresight to register their own names and then employ bullying and a public smear campaign on a public domaining board to try to steal what someone else owns in good faith don't get my sympathy. What a cheapo company to go the reverse hijacking method rather than honestly pay for what you covet...

Comment #140

And you are a liar.

Domain Name

Last Modified 24-Aug-2008 18:30:46 UTC.

Registrar ID IntaServe.

Registrar Name IntaServe.

Status ok.


Registrant ID ABN 39026527516.

You left some change on the table:.

"a global operation with products in every major market worldwide.".

Name one of your products in the US, and where it may be found...

Comment #141 to explain this? Unless you meant you and the company are operating separately. But that's a.

Bit hard to swallow given your actions and a couple of other things.

Your QC's not Googlee Bear, I hope.

Ooops, just saw John B posted before me. That's what I get for not checking.

Fast enough...

Comment #142

John B it is pleasure to see your support for buydomains. Legit domainers have a powerful tool with your legendary law services.

The stakes are getting higher, care to bluff another hand? Your ante sir...

Comment #143

Simple to explain, AusRegistry require an ABN from the administrative contact of the domain, plus one of two domain registration reasons. The ABN provided is of myself as the Admin contact for the domain , it is NOT the ACN of Print Links Pty Ltd.



132 891 073.

Type Australian Proprietary Company, Limited By Shares.

Registration Date 25/08/2008.

Next Review Date 25/08/2009.

Status Registered.

Locality of Registered Office Ferntree Gully VIC 3156.

Jurisdiction Australian Securities & Investments Commission.

I don't particularly care that you cannot understand the difference between an ABN an ACN and Registered Business Name. In simple terms ABN numbers relate to taxation and GST compliance in Australia, ASIC who issue ACN numbers are the body who deal with company registration.

To put it in CLEAR and SIMPLE langauge.

My personal business and that of Print Links Pty Ltd are entirely seperate entities. Print Links Pty Ltd has 100,000 issued shares, divided and owned by a large printing machinery company in Australia, by executives and relatives of that company, by several private investors and of course myself and my partner who is also a joint director of another large printing machinery company.

I cannot now comment on legal proceedings however I can say that the QC who provided us with our original written legal opinion is well known, has an excellent reputation in the field of IP law and Corporate Governance. Our layers, different from the QC as a QC does not directly represent you being a barrister, are a well known in the media in Australia for their management of large disputes, therefore we feel very happy with the representation we have and the basis upon which things will proceed.

The one regret I do have is starting this thread, as it has shown that many people inside the US have a belief that world community property is their own and that IP rights outside of their own frameworks and understanding do not stand merit. It's also staggering to see a number of amateurish attempts by using ABN numbers to link several legally unrelated entities and myself and form them as one when anyone who understands corporations in Australia would understand that an ABN registration of an individual is for taxation purposes and that it is actually ASIC who handle company registrations and compliance. You may call me a liar dear sir, I call you misinformed.

I'll list a few:.

*Heidelberg and Komori Printing Equipment traded and brokered internationally by a key company shareholder since 1989.

*Engineering Services provided to the Printing Industry in Australia.

*A key shareholder and the company secretary has been in the Printing Industry for over 20 years, her father 20 years prior to that. That company has been represented at many trade shows throughout the printing industry worldwide most recently drupa 08 and soon PacPrint 09.

Personally, we do not have to justify to you our bona fides, you can do real company searches and link together the quite complex ownership structure and then work out who owns what and where there experience is...

Comment #144

First of all, if you claim that your business is a traditional publication and has not had an online presence to date, how can you claim that BD's ownership of the domain has caused your company losses? What losses? It's not like people are looking for your magazine online, since, you know, you don't have an online presence. And if you were so concerned about people looking for your magazine online, than why wouldn't you have bought the domain years ago? Even if it was a traditional publication, it still makes sense to at least have a website where potential customers could learn about the magazine and order a subscription if nothing else.

Also, if your company is losing so much money by not possessing the domain, then wouldn't it make sense from a business perspective to pay $4k for the domain, which is not unreasonable, if it means saving multiples more in losses? I dont know about you, but if I'm losing X amount of dollars per day in lost business, my first inclination is going to be to acquire that domain as quickly and cheaply as possible so I can stop those losses from occurring. The thing I would NOT do, is spend countless days, weeks, months, etc... trying to acquire the domain through legal means when I don't have a leg to stand on.

A search on Google provides absolutely no indication that "Print Links" even exists. I've found no mention of the publication at all. Even if you claim to not have an online presence, it still stands to reason that someone somewhere (a subscriber perhaps) in the last, oh I don't know, 13 years at least, would have made some mention of the publication on the Internet. Also, as was pointed out by a printing professional in your own country, he's never heard of it. I've worked in the printing industry in the US and I've never heard of it either.

The domain seems rather generic IMO. Even if it were not, BD's usage of the domain does not seem to be infringing on your TM. You can't claim in one breath that Print Link is allowable, because they offer employment matching for the printing industry, and then claim that BD's usage of, which has nothing to do with matching printing professionals with printing machinery manufacturers is somehow infringing. You can't claim exclusive rights to the term throughout the entire print industry and then make exceptions for other companies which operate under a confusingly similar name in that industry.

I'd even go as far as to argue that you aren't actually providing a matchmaking service for printing professionals and printing machinery manufacturers. You claim that your company is owned by a printing machinery manufacturer... So are we to assume that your offer a vehicle that allows your potential customers to be matched with competing machinery companies? Or would it be safer to assume that the publication is rather a medium for advertising your machinery manufacturing company and therefore offers no real product or service for which the TM is applied?.

More than likely, it sounds to me like you just started this business a few weeks ago and don't have the money to acquire the domain through outright purchase or a practical legal approach, which would be a UDRP...

Comment #145

Your company structure is obviously confusing, but what it sounds like to me is the company has been doing business under a different name for 20 years, and just recently spun off Print Links Pty. Ltd. as a subsidiary. If I am understanding correctly, the domain registration would pre-date the formation of Print Links Pty. Ltd. even though it doesn't pre-date the operations of the parent company.

Might as well spin off Marketing Pty. Ltd. and try to take Its a parked page, you might just win..

Comment #146

You are almost right, except for the fact that the Print Links service has been run for over 20 years by the originating organizations and thus is a brand we have chosen to protect...

Comment #147

That's the thing. You keep saying that, but there's a couple of details posted.

Here potentially conflicting with your claims.

You're correct that trademarks don't have to be registered to exist. However,.

Common law trademarks generally apply only to the jurisdictions they're used.

In commerce for.

One can use the term printlinks for whatever in Australia for 20 years. But it's.

Not going to apply to another country like the U.S., except if any agreement's.

Specifically addressing specific conditions, or if you or your company has been.

Using it in there subject to that country's laws.

Here's something to get you started: You currently and seemingly have no proof of your trademark use for printlinks.

Outside Australia, much more being a so-called world wide brand. That's what.

Registration is for.

While a Google search isn't necessarily the ultimate authoritative source, it is.

One way to show how "popular" (or not) printlinks is. As Ronald noted, there's.

No kind of proof printlinks exists as a mark.

(Beats me how one can demonstrate in Australia their company or so existed.

Long before it's officially registered in their relevant database. I'll let the legal.

Eagles especially familiar with Australian law deal with that.).

Since you mentioned the agreement between the two countries:

Granted, there's lots of terms there that could work in your favor. But some of.

Them can also work for BuyDomains, depending on all available facts.

Speaking of facts, that's really what's going to matter if you finally get around.

To suing BuyDomains for this and trying maybe to use that agreement to your.

Possible advantage. But like I said, there's a couple here pointed out that isn't.

Seemingly proving what you said, and they can be used against you.

You're also right you don't have to prove anything to anyone around here w/c.

Is perfectly fine. Obviously you have to prove your claims in court, but BD can.

Very well dispute your dispute using every available fact here (and more) if it.

Chooses to do so.

If anyone's going to finally decide this, it's the court itself if you finally sue. If.

You win, much more enforce the decision, good for you.

But if you lose, obviously tough luck. And that'll further damage your chances.

Of possibly buying, much more somehow getting, the domain from BuyDomains.

It's a shame you resorted to such tactics here such as claiming they extorted.

You and what not, creating a lot of ill will, rather than trying to negotiate for.

A win-win solution. But I suppose you have no problem if someone might do it.

To you as well.

As to your post that many people seeminly think "IP rights outside of their own.

Frameworks and understanding do not stand merit", and to quote a panelist in.

The UDRP: Oh, and I didn't and don't have to call you a liar. Your actions, or rather your.

Posts, speak for them.

You'll be arguably lucky BuyDomains currently doesn't see fit to hold you liable.

For what you stated here. You may believe you're within your country's limits,.

But that's again for a court to decide if it comes to that...

Comment #148

...thus missing the point that these unrelated entities use "print links" or close variants thereof in Australia.

I know they are unrelated. You are oblivious to the implications of that fact. I'm not "supporting" BuyDomains. This guy is a poser...

Comment #149

I think what goodkarmaco meant was along the lines of "supporting the domainer instead of the 'company'/'individual pretending to be a company' acting ridiculously out of line". I think it was meant as a compliment of sorts.. but I could be wrong...

Comment #150


Yes, just happy to see all the support and knowledge coming forth in this thread, supporting domainers.. you including.

Also very happy to see a mod has changed the title of this thread as it was way out of line with the facts posted so far.


Comment #151

Oh I realize that. I wanted to be clear that I am not in any way engaged by or working on behalf of Buydomains or their parent company. In fact, I've been on the other side of the table from them in the past on behalf of clients...

Comment #152

Thks J.

I don't know about the rest of you domainers, but I don't like the rudeness and greedy stance Adp-us has shown in this thread. In one way we can now be on the watch as I think this approach will be more forthcoming. The media which does not understand the domain world is quick to parrot words from people who think that hard working domainers have no rights to domains. I am not talking here about Tm names. In most cases the names have traffic and it's this traffic the parasites are wanting.

There is nothing wrong in my opinion if a person or company thinks a person is infringing on their name. The system does have a proper procedure to file for review. What is this poster doing that is so different?. He is first off using threats to hopefully have the domain owner fearful and he is rude.

Now ask yourself if a email like this landed in your email box, what would you do? If a person is not well heeled and has little or no monies to defend his domain then it may be easy to forfiet and avoid a costly legal fight. You must ask yourself, does this domain really infringe on the company or the person who is threatning to take it away from me. Or is this just another case of push and shove.

Push and shove will yeild results because many will just panic and decide to push the name to the requester. Step back and think about the huge domain windfalls that can come to those who use this tactic. Maybe they have hundreds of bogus claims going all at the same time against domainers. Out of those hundreds 10-20-30 or more will automatically be "pushed" to them from domainers who do not know law.

I just want to point out, these parasites are breeding fast and this is just the start. They really have little domain background knowledge, but they are looking at your assets and they want them...

Comment #153

So many people missed the boat and are desperate now..

In fact I'm pretty sure most people would welcome legislation such as the Snowe Bill. After all we are the bad guys that prey on poor business owners..

Comment #154

Hmmm, OP's maybe he went to other forums posting same info...

Comment #155

Hmm... Just kidding, folks. But I'm sure AdPlus will think that looks good.....

Comment #156

Be funny if filed a UDRP after all of this... They own a registered TM, and they are both in the printing industry...

Comment #157

BuyDomains gave in?.

I guess we'll never know the full story after all.....

Comment #158

I wish I would never have to deal with anybody like AdPlus...

Comment #159

Nice white text. You had me go look at the whois information..

Comment #160

Now there's gonna be a post to threaten to remove that WHOIS info that was posted on this page...

Comment #161

I doubt.

I don't see any changes to the whois either.....

Comment #162

I took Dave Zen's word with regards to the whois...

Comment #163


Sorry it was variation on my pic of homer eating popcorn..

Cant post the same one all the time..

Comment #164

AdPlus will spend several thousands of dollars on lawyers and/or UDRP and then get exactly what they deserve.


Good luck on waisting your time and money...

Comment #165

I must say, I am now tired of this whole fiasco, why not go and register for $19.95 or jump on the .tv bandwagon for $24.95, or why not BUY the and get on with your life?.

I gave the complainant the benefit of the doubt earlier in this thread, but I now feel that a pattern of threats and intimidation and premeditated manipulation has occurred. I believe this whole thread to be a plan to increase exposure of the new online printing business of the complainant, and to get the required domain name for cheap, if not free.

Coming onto a public forum with this type of grievance, I believe is way out of line, and shows a cowboy approach to business, that I believe has no place in todays society, let alone Australia. Quite frankly, I think it is a disgrace, and I will never use your business or reccommend your business to anyone I know...

Comment #166

He has not even got that indexed in Google yet, yet he has a "divine right" to own Quoteur company is here to "Shake it Up!", this is our motto and our goal! YOU GOT THAT RIGHT LOL..

Comment #167

..he needs to Wake up before he can Shake it up.


Comment #168

Can this thread please be closed. Its annoying and it's going no where, fast. The OP has not even logged in for days, prolly realizing that the thread was ridiculous. If the OP comes back and starts a new thread just merge them and open the thread backup...

Comment #169

I'm actually really enjoying it - I check it 10 or so times a day.... it's like a cool drama movie.....

Comment #170

I agree! This is real fun. It goes back to Arnie's comment about this being a good thread for popcorn...

Comment #171

IDK this whole thread just seems pointless. There no proof of the printing company actually existing, except for the recent web presence...

I work for prolly the largest printer company in the world, HP, and I have never personally heard of this publication. Nor has anyone else in this thread that has been related to the industry. Also if the OP has been buying and selling domains for the past 2(TWO) years they should know better and obviously had a legit web presence with in the past 2 years if the company actually exists.

Also, to also further the fact that the OP is, on a hunch, a poser the site is a "copy and paste" blog. Check it out yourself, copy some parts of articles on there and paste them on google only to find they are published on the respective sites.

I say without proof or any progression of this thread it is dead in the water and should be closed until further notice...

Comment #172


Right off the bat, I pointed out this op is a bully and the WAY he posted pointed to his non rights to this name.

This thread is highly educational to all domainers.

I know I want to see this thread stick around a while longer to see if the op manages to put his foot further into his mouth. I know where I would put mine if I could.

The op has no clue what public relations are Imo...

Comment #173

Excellent. This thread is a shining example of what not to do on many levels ranging from threats to bs to expansive claims to possible defamation... the list goes on and on. Learning from the negative experiences of others is valuable training...

I think the funniest part was shooting the mouth off in public after talking to a lawyer... any *real* lawyer. Does that sound like typical lawyer advice?..

Comment #174

I vote for keeping the thread open, it'll be interested to see how this one plays out...however long it takes.



Comment #175

Until the thread locks itself within a year, I think. But it'll indeed be interesting.

To see if AdPlus finally gets around to filing suit or whatever, moreso enforcing.


If his QC or lawyer or whatever is Googlee Bear, though, ha, good luck...

Comment #176

Dude, if you don't like the thread, don't click on it. Is there some crazy Alaskan flakey chick holding a gun to your head? Astute observation.

The "lawyer" in these types of situations never has a name, either.

Print-outs from domain forums regularly show up as evidence in UDRP disputes.

And yes, the QC must have been Goog Lee Bear...

Comment #177

Hmmm.. good points from J B.

Maybe it is true, the op belching loud noises and the tantrum throwing might not have been approved by his lawyer either.

Hey Ad guy, you go from making loud noises to silence?..

Comment #178

This is my first check of this thread since I left Bangkok for Koh Samui last week thus no response from myself.

As stated earlier, a letter has been sent to BuyDomains with a an offer and a time frame after which we will consider our options. Also as stated earlier no further comment on legal action will be made until the issue has been resolved one way or the other.

I am happy to discuss the generalities though.

On the subject of the Company PrintLinks Pty Ltd, yes this is a newly registered company comprised of several shareholders, companies and individuals with well over 20 years in the Printing Industry in Australia.

We took a consortium approach to developing an already successful product (a paper and service based one) to the internet. Anyone is free to perform a company search to find out who the shareholders are, however it is not my place to name them all here.

I will however make the point that many may not approve of the tactical approach to posting this thread, there really was no intention to use the thread to bully anyone, however it still to me boils down to the fact that massive speculation on domains which could potentially infringe upon others rights is a bad thing and nobody benefits from this in the end.

I certainly will not, without a fight, be lining any large domain speculators pockets if we truly believe the domain is held in bad faith or that we have established rights to the name.

I think the issue is one of interest to all no matter which side of the fence you sit on...

Comment #179

Actually both the seller, who gains money, and the buyer, who gets the domain they wanted, benefit from it. I agree..

Comment #180

It really doesn't make any difference what you think of domain investors. It is just as viable a profession as real estate investment or investment in fine art or anything else of value. Too bad for you that someone has invested in something you want. Actually, a lot of people have invested in things I'd like to have but it never occurred to me to attempt to reverse hijack them out of what is rightfully theirs. Many of the people on this board would never invest in a domain that had a legitimate trademark claim attached to it. I'd be interested to see how your alleged rights to this domain hold up in court, as you have not made a very convincing case for it here...

Comment #181

Considering your choice of words in one of your previous posts, that seemed.

To be more than bullying whether there really was no intention or there was..

Beats me what else is one supposed to think.

If one believes another party's actions is infringing their rights, then isn't that.

What lawyers and/or courts are for? Then again, isn't it generally the burden.

Of the one making the claim to demonstrate it?..

Comment #182

Newly registered company? And you contend that BuyDomains is cybersquatting on your trademark?! Sounds to me like the very definition of Reverse Hijacking.

I hope there's a way for this to be turned around back on you and that you be held fully liable for costs and fees your victim incurs along with substantial punative damages.

And then someone ties you upsidedown to a stake and leaves you in the middle of the outback for the ants to eat.

Just kidding. "Fact". Right. Fact is it's typical Reverse Hijacker talk.

Show me the name that by itself couldn't *potentially* infringe on somebody else's mark somewhere, somehow (and in this case, sometime)...

Comment #183

Im sorry to say Adplus, you have Zip and Pip on this, I waited until I had looked into this fully before shooting my mouth off, and the conclusion is you have nothing, no right to anything whatsoever, you have a that is not even indexed by Google yet! How can somebody be infringing on your trademark, rights, copyright or whatever, when you do not even have an online presence? If somebody searches for printlinks online......your not even there! Not only are you trying to reverse hijack, but you are trying to reverse hijack something you have no legitimate claim to. Infact I would go as so far as to say BuyDomains may actually have a better chance of making a case against you, and your company. Ahmen..

Comment #184


He has sent a letter for an offer to buy the name. That ain't gonna look good in court now is it?.

Looks like your ride in on a Harley and the rumblin noises was not enuff to scare or shake the domain pro, especially since the minute you took your leathers off, you look and acted like a skinny kid...

Comment #185

Let me understand this: $4,340 + $488 = $4,828, the listed prices of the .com and .net of PrintLinks on BD? I don't know how stingy they are on the $x88 priced domains, but I bet $4,340 could have even be talked DOWN a thousand or so. Clearly if the .org and .info were available as of a couple weeks ago, they probably were not getting very much response to it. I bought from them and talked them down at least a couple grand from what I remember.

So, what I have to ask the OP is: Clearly you believe your lawyers' time isn't worth much, because you could have bought the domains and gotten it overwith. Clearly OUR time isn't worth much because you bother us with this ridiculous crap to begin with when money that your company easily has available could have solved the problem (which by the way is the key - as the phrase goes, "a problem that can be solved with money is not a problem"). So - why do you not think your OWN time is worth much? How many hours of your time and effort have you wasted posting here, let alone dealing with BuyDomains on this matter when you could have spent maybe 10 minutes and a few grand in the buying process and you'd HAVE what you WANT.

Whether you get what you want or not, you're going to look back on this at some point and smack yourself in the head. That or I can do it for you if needbe, though Australia's a little out of my reach...

Comment #186

So true, I know that I have talked BuyDomains down to $800 from $1688 (I was actually completely shocked when they accepted my offer - I figured I was really lowballing them), so I don't doubt the OP could have negotiated it considerably lower - maybe even under 2k, considering that the economy is slumping and I'm sure that buydomains is as eager to keep their profit margin up as any of us here are, LOL...

Comment #187

"this is a newly registered company".

That is entitled to a domain that was registered back in July of 2003?.

I don't think so!.

Really, shame on you is the only response you deserve.

This is what I expected from your very posting.


Comment #188

For some reason he seems to think that the collective experience his executives have in the industry somehow equate to a common use trademark back from when they entered the business. Sorry, it doesn't work that way. If you just recently started doing business under this name then the registration of the domain predates your rights to it, and you are guaranteed to lose.

Just negotiate with them and buy the darn thing, you're going to have to pay their price eventually for it. Hopefully you haven't pissed them off so much that they won't budge on the price, their sales reps usually have about 30% leeway when negotiating without having to clear anything with their supervisors...

Comment #189

The reason this hasn't been taken to WIPO because it's a guaranteed loss there, but in the courts you never know.....

Comment #190

No, we have not sent a letter of offer to buy the domain, we have sent a letter of demand and offer to resolve the dispute. Big difference there. Sorry, you can't really google for a paper newsletter and telephone service that has been operating for twenty years + and has never been published or represented on any web site (until now).

I am sure there are many industry specific services that have operated many years without much, if any reference to them on the web. They sit very nicely in their vertical markets, servicing the needs of their industry sector and have carried on from the days of the typewriter and gestetner duplicator.

Let me paint a scenario for you. A printing industry company develops a service to link printers with printing machine dealers, begins running a phone service, produces a newsletter, this increases in size and circulation. Much time and effort is placed into establishing the service using a banner, a brand name.

Over time people in the industry know of this brand name, know of the service, regularly use it and life goes on. People buy and sell Komori, Heidelberg, Whollenberg, Muller Martini, Polar machines through the service on a daily basis. We are talking mid sized printing shops here, usually run by old school printers with no computers in sight.

Then one day the web appears as a commercial mechanism for doing business, no worries, the existing service didn't require the web to keep doing what it had been doing for years.

Then a number of parties get together and look at a way of improving the service, times change, old school printing machine dealers until recently got no closer to the web than seeing their kids use myspace.

A new company is formed, to conglomerate the parties involved, to establish a seperate entity and develop a brand that has existed for years prior to the webs existence.

British/Australian common law and common law trademarks differ from the US in many ways. However thanks to agreements made between respective countries over rights protection enforcement is now easier for unregistered trademarks.

Now, most people in this thread have obviously only half read it, not understood the facts or those that have are probably bored silly by it now.

We will be happy to report the outcome of any settlement or court judgement to this thread, but now we are within the process, we will not and can not comment on the legal issues involved in the specific dispute, I will only discuss generalities...

Comment #191

I think the following line is laughable considering that you threatened legal action after charging Buy Domains with extortion, on a public forum. Trust me, if this case ever hits court this thread will be used against you.


Comment #192

And there are thousands of of other companies who can lay down the exact flimsy argument for thinking the domain should be theirs.

Its a big world out there and thousands of different business can lay claim. You do not have a brand. You want a brand.

Printlinks is a domain that can be used for your business and also fits nicely with thousands of other business plans. A business can buy the name and have nothing to do with a printing company. A coupon marketing company might come along and demand the name from you if you owned it. What makes you think printlinks cannot be sold to any business simply as a brand. For instance Kinkos who may just redirect it for type in traffic to their Kinkos website. Maybe a new type of Suduko puzzle will come out that involves a download on the internet, hence they want to "brand" it printlinks.

To establish trademark infringment is impossible for you as you have none.

To make a case that the domain infringes on your brand is a joke.

Your imagination is big and you are a salesmen, but nobody is buying the story. Your claim that confusion over your brand is going on is hopeful thinking.

Your presentation of your argument would be no stronger than the hundreds of thousands of photography firms around the world going after the domain with the same flimsy claims. They could simply claim their photograhy studio who missed the internet business in sharing photos online should have the rights to the name as they now are going to go online. Don't forget to point out the reason why the name should be taken from the owner is because some cybersquatter has it parked.

I hope you are sterile...

Comment #193

Personally...I think you are full of shit. For twenty years (count em') I have been a printer. My current employer has been in the game for substantially more time than that (poor bugger), and between us, we can't come up with any clue as to who the hell you are!!!????.

This thread is getting ridiculous as far I'm concerned cause you can't even give me a name to me that even rings a bell in the industry in Australia.

Just a wanker spreading fertiliser to grow a case from nothing IMHO..

Comment #194

I'm no lawyer, but I would imagine that for your Common Law trademark to be deemed valid it would need to have achieved some notoriety..

But it looks like few people in the industry, even in Oz know you exist..

I hope you have proof to the contrary, because anybody could make ludicrous claims like that to claim to what is not righfully theirs, you know.

Even if you were able to assert some rights in Australia (doubtful imo but well).

You're NOT the only PrintLink(s) on the planet...

Just because your (hypothetical) 'TM' *could* be tried and enforced overseas does not mean it's absolute.

I would really love to see your powerful arm reaching out to Buydomains' juridiction..

Surprise me...

Comment #195

That's the biggest load of shite I'v heard in a very long time.

You are nothing more than a sad, misguided, manipulating BULLY that has an overinflated opinion of yourself and your company.

...I hope BuyDomains takes the time to teach you a lesson.....NUMPTY.


Comment #196

That's such a load of crap. There are plenty of prominent goods and services which are not "online services" per se, that are mentioned on websites and directories of various kinds.

Even following your own tortured logic, then perhaps you might explain why it is BuyDomains was supposed to know of your obscure rights.

Now, earlier on, you mentioned your internationally prominent brands, and I asked you to name one. I'm still waiting. Also a load of crap. There are no treaties that make Australian common law rights effective to constrain the activities of anyone in the US. The term "print links" is not even distinctive within Australia, as you pointed out relative to others using the phrase in Australia for businesses not related to yours...

Comment #197

*Cough* Reverse Hijacker *Cough*.

You have not shown or given any evidence that you have common law or registered TM rights, and you gain those rights through USE... of which you nor anyone else can come up with or use that would even constitute trade in the slightest... not even a developed website.

No USE = No TM. Unless you can prove otherwise (and we aren't the law so it's your choice whether to prove it here or not), no court of law or UDRP panel will give a lick of listening to you and your wild claims. In fact, if you do try to UDRP BuyDomains, I hope they hire JB or someone just as good and they request to find you as a reverse hijacker, since you are based on what we have seen in this thread.

In fact I hope BD sues you for harassment and blackmail. You deserve it for trying to bully them like you have.

Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law... and you have left plenty of incriminating evidence here already... care to add to it?..

Comment #198

You must be on a cruise with all your winnings from the lawsuit as you have not made a peep.

Or maybe you are out of wind after your loud yelling and rantings did not get buydomains to tremble in fear of you and now you are off looking for plunder elsewhere?..

Comment #199

This whole thing has to be a joke, right?.

Either way, after you attempt to take the name from BuyDomains and fail, I sincerely hope they either remove the domain from being for sale period, or jack up the price massively to cover the cost of all your time wasting. It is available for 4.5k or so right now, did you consider the fact that if (when) you lose, it may not be?..

Comment #200

I'd do yourself a favor and purchase the domain for $4k while you can IMO...

Comment #201

This thread gets my vote for the funniest till date in '08.

The real principle here was that the OP thought he could arm twist BD to handover the domain cheap coz he'd been a member of this forum for a bit and thought he understood tm law because he read some posts in this section.

I think this would make an excellent case study for companies on what not to do while trying to acquire a domain that is real pertinent to their business and up for sale in any case...

Comment #202

It is still for sale!.

I am sure that the OP has his legal team working on it though...

Comment #203

And what would you guess the outcome would be?..

Comment #204

Stop badgering the witness, this has been asked and answered (I had to say that.).

I believe the poster said they expected a UDRP, with an end result of a finding of RDNH. I would expect that too... in a sane universe that is. OTOH, some panel decisions are not known for sanity...

Comment #205

You'll need a crystal ball for that. But BuyDomains isn't exactly a stranger to.

UDRPs, so resistance will be expected also...

Comment #206

I've received a couple of PM's asking where this has gone, or if there has been an outcome.

The matter is still afoot. I cannot discuss the legal issues while we are inside the process we have begun.

I will update the forum when I have news to report but as of now there isn't any. These things can take time...

Comment #207

If you finally file a case and it's posted online, kindly post a link to it for all to.


Comment #208

I would be surprised if he was naive enough to actually file a lawsuit, if he had any sense he would know (if nothing else, by this thread) that he has little (and little is really too nice a term) to no case against them (based on industry people's responses here and the lack of evidence that his 'business' has been around for longer than this thread).

But if he wants to spend many thousands pursuing a name he could have had for a fraction of the cost, it's not my money... so have at it! If you want to risk (and a very high risk I might add) being labeled a reverse hijacker, then go shoot yourself in the foot. Just keep the gun pointed at your own foot.

If you ask me, I would gander a guess that he is really saying that he is still threatening them and trying to force them to give up the name. I hope he realizes what is, or one would expect to be, coming his way if he continues to pursues this tact...before it's too late...

Comment #209

This question was taken from a support group/message board and re-posted here so others can learn from it.


Categories: Home | Diet & Weight Management | Vitamins & Supplements | Herbs & Cleansing |

Sexual Health | Medifast Support | Nutrisystem Support | Medifast Questions |

Web Hosting | Web Hosts | Website Hosting | Hosting |

Web Hosting | GoDaddy | Digital Cameras | Best WebHosts |

Web Hosting FAQ | Web Hosts FAQ | Hosting FAQ | Hosting Group |

Hosting Questions | Camera Tips | Best Cameras To Buy | Best Cameras This Year |

Camera Q-A | Digital Cameras Q-A | Camera Forum | Nov 2010 - Cameras |

Oct 2010 - Cameras | Oct 2010 - DSLRs | Oct 2010 - Camera Tips | Sep 2010 - Cameras |

Sep 2010 - DSLRS | Sep 2010 - Camera Tips | Aug 2010 - Cameras | Aug 2010 - DSLR Tips |

Aug 2010 - Camera Tips | July 2010 - Cameras | July 2010 - Nikon Cameras | July 2010 - Canon Cameras |

July 2010 - Pentax Cameras | Medifast Recipes | Medifast Recipes Tips | Medifast Recipes Strategies |

Medifast Recipes Experiences | Medifast Recipes Group | Medifast Recipes Forum | Medifast Support Strategies |

Medifast Support Experiences |


(C) Copyright 2010 All rights reserved.