Hi Saliya and all,

It is refreshing to see that there is an acknowledgment and cognizance 
of some of the underlying marketing, consumer
legal and consumer protection issues at play here. Certain list members 
may well find it instructive to consider the recentinjunction order in 
the ACCC v Internet Name Protection Pty. Ltd. case more carefully:

Viz.

THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT THAT:

Upon the first respondent, by its counsel, undertaking that until the 
hearing and determination of the proceeding, or until further order:

(1) it will not in Australia or elsewhere, publish, distribute, or 
display material, by any means whatsoever (including electronic 
transmission and/or oral communications) in which it:

(a) represents that the letters "bz" in the domain name ".bz" means or 
refers to "business";

(b) represents that registration of a domain name in the ".bz" domain 
indicates the registration of a business;

(c) represents that it has a pre-existing relationship with a person, if 
in truth it does not, in particular, by stating that there is such a 
relationship or by describing its notices as "Renewal Advices" or by an 
invitation to "confirm" a renewal or by addressing its notices to 
"accounts payable". The notices it sends to those persons to whom it 
does not have a pre-existing relationship will include the statement: 
"You do not have to renew your domain name registration through ING" 
(such statement to appear in the body of the text (in the same size and 
font as that text) on the front page of the notices);

(d) represents that it has the authority itself, and itself can provide, 
the registration or renewal of a customer's domain name;

(c) represents that it is offering multiple free services, if in truth 
it is not;

(f) represents that it has a relationship with Melbourne IT that in 
truth it does not;

(g) represents that it can register ".com.au" domain names on the 
internet for a period of more than two years;

(h) represents that it is necessary for persons to have its assistance 
to obtain a registry key;

(i) represents that an application for pre-registration of one of the 
names ".biz" or ".info" must be made through it;

(j) represents that it is necessary to have access to a "registry key" 
before a domain name can be renewed, if in truth it is not;

(k) represents there are no statutory warranties as to merchantability 
or fitness for purpose applicable to services it provides, alternatively 
that clause 3 of the First Respondent's Terms and Conditions Applying to 
Pre-Registration of Domain Names is capable of avoiding the effect of 
sections 68 and 74 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth);

<snip>

All the cited orders relate in one way or another to (mis) 
representations by the defendant. Making contact with a client prospect 
is not in its own right an offence under the Trade Practices Act 1974 
(Cth). Good heavens this would be highly anti-competitive if it were the 
case. How would new products / services get any market traction/share?

Neither is offering a cheaper price than other market participants nor 
is the offer of a complimentary gift.

Those on this list that have a propensity of carp incessantly (Hi 
Ginger:-) about certain market participants activities would be well 
advised to read some introductory material around:

marketing
direct marketing
ethical marketing
(Australian) Consumer Protection Laws.

 From the Cupertino hottub

-DGT



Saliya Wimalaratne wrote:

>On Wed, 15 May 2002, drew&#167;dronus.org wrote:
>
>>I too have had call s from customers telling me that people have been
>>calling them trying to get their domain renewals.. not the same company
>>that is in this thread though ( i dont think that they have started
>>spamming in my part of australia yet )
>>
>
>Hang on guys,
>
>there's nothing wrong with offering a service to
>not-already-your-customer for a price.
>
>The important part is that any such offer needs to be clearly presented as
>such. An offer of a new service that is branded 'renewal' is, IMHO,
>Deceptive or Misleading conduct under the TPA and as such is already
>covered.
>
>Don't make it impossible to offer a competitor's customer a better
>deal; just make it impossible to do so in a misleading fashion.
>
>With respect to the 'you must register x.com because you have x.com.au'
>tactics; plainly, it is up to the individual business to decide whether
>they want to do this. I of course think that more than one domain per
>entity (for the purposes of 'protection') is stupid.
>
>Regards,
>
>Saliya
>
>
>
>---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
>Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the 
>author, further information at the above URL.  (315 subscribers.)
>
>