britainsgottalent.co.uk sedo bid £100,000

[domains]

Would anyone like britainsgottalent.org.uk?

This domain Britain's Got Talent - Unofficial Site - BritainsGotTalent.org.uk is for sale on sedo

 

[BG]

britainsgottalent.me

BritainsGotTalent...........Me Ho, ho, ho

Its FREE to register, wow wee! quick quick my little monkeys go register this million dollar domain and escape the rat-race they call domaining...

Even with the Credit crunch, Credit squeeze, Got no credit on my mobile, black monday, orange wednesday, green thursday i think we're looking at a cool £million easy, grab it while you can

BG

 

[rob]

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/30688_britainsgottalent.co.uk___1.pdf

 

[domainseller200]

Hmmmmm fair decision in your opinion ?

 

[bb99]

In light of that, I would love to know the identity of the Sedo £100k bidder!

 

[mat]

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/30688_britainsgottalent.co.uk___1.pdf

Good read!

 

[fairplay]

Hmmmmm fair decision in your opinion ?

This decision is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

To Rob, Domainseller200, bbs and Mat and any other domainer on this site, some insight into what really went on,

This decision is wrong on so many levels and the owner has lodged a complaint against the Expert with Nominet’s Legal director as is his not advertised and little known right.

1) Fremantle had already offered to buy the name.
2) The name precedes the show by over a year.
3) The site is an online talent finder and markets unsigned talent based on an original idea.
4) The site clearly publishes a DISCLAIMER on the footer of every page on the site stating it "HAS NO CONNECTION" with the tv show.
5) The site has over 3,400 members.
6) The site gets more traffic than the tv shows official website.

FACT: Fremantle offered to buy the BritainsGotTalent.co.uk but their derisory initial offer was refused.

FACT: The solicitor acting for Fremantle personally promised that a satisfactory figure and agreement would be structured.

** When the owner had not heard anything for a few weeks and they asked Fremantle if they could help they were told (not to worry) Fremantle were still having discussions with various people in the group and they needed more time.

LIE: They were secretly building a case for abusive registration to put to Nominet.

Fremantle were offered the option to resolve everything during mediation and the owner kept all lines of communication open to try to resolve things, they chose not to. Fremantle could not prove a case and then lodged an “exceptional circumstances” appeal so the the expert would ‘have to’ read more supposed proof.

Thie “exceptional circumstances” were that they ACCUSED the owner of placing an ad in the Times newspaper online stating that this tv show could be entered via BritainsGotTalent.co.uk. The owner infuriated by this asked the Editor of the Times to investigate this which they did. This Times categorically stated that the owner HAD NOT PLACE THE AD, however given data protection they could not identify who did!!

This ad was placed as a cynical attempt by someone to discredit the owner, by someone with a vested interest. Given that this page could only be found by entering an obscure string that only returned 7 replies instead of around 2 million for the term britains got talent it could only have been found, if you actually knew it was there beforehand.

LIE: Nevertheless this was proven to be yet another lie.

FACT: The Solicitor acting for Fremantle NO LONGER works for the company.

** When asked why? – Fremantle stated the person in charge of and who built this important case for the company no longer worked for Fremantle because he was a temp!!. I will leave you to believe what you chose on this however given that Fremantles entire trademark rests on this as far as I am concerned this is nonsense.

While the Expert seems to find for the owner throughout this document the decision in the main is made because the of revenue made through an advertising campaign.

** In spite of the fact that the expert had a signed statement from the owner "as part of his submissions" stating that “ NO MONEY” had been made via the site. The owner clearly explained that to do this would require to enter into legal agreements with advertisers for a period of 12 months and this clearly could not be done as the site to all intents and purpose was going to be SOLD. The ads that do appear on the site are to show the purchaser how a similar advertising campaign could be structured. NO ADS CAN BE BOUGHT THROUGH THIS SITE.

This is damning for the Expert and for Nominet for had the Expert tried she would have found this! – and had she gone further she would have been presented by a Paypal page showing a cost of £000.00. At this stage her decision falls apart

This is a travesty for Nominet, the expert is clearly wrong. The owner has the backing of many who point out Nominet’s historical decisions where large companies are involved and in 99% of cases the big company whether they have rights or not wins, this flies in the face of what Nominet is supposed to stand for.

The owner is waiting to hear an ‘informed opinion’ and is hopeful that the British sense of fair play will prevail and this decision will be overturned as it so obviously warranted.

This is an opportunity for all domainers to have their say and I would welcome any debate on this and the owner who is of good standing on this site would also.

 

[rob]

Have you lodged an appeal, if not , why not?

 

[fairplay]

Have you lodged an appeal, if not , why not?

Rob no not at this time. The short answer is £3k plus vat, however we wanted to take this to the highest level at Nominet first. More importantly we wanted to make everyone aware this is an option that people who might not have that sort of money have, and it is an option that is available to anyone involved in anything like this although not generally advertised.

We want to bring what had happened in this case and in many peoples opinion what has happened in many cases where big business is involved to director level at Nominet. This expert has made a decision which is patently wrong and Fremantle have proved nothing. They have been found out for orchestrating a scurrilous campaign and yet there seems to be no justice. Nominet now have to come back with an informed opinion.

 

[fairplay]

Please, Please everyone who is viewing this string - have your say instead of just looking and moving on.

I welcome whatever any member of this site has to say on this, I will take it on good or bad but I'm of the belief that the majority will be positive and show support.

We need all the help we can get on this and it is in my opinion a great opportunity to "have your say" to Nominet on what people actively involved in the industry actually think.

Thanks...

 

[bb99]

I think complaining to Nominet will get the owner nowhere on this one. The DRS and the DRS experts are "independent" from Nominet* and so there is no procedure to complain about DRS decisions in this way.

If the owner really feels wronged, they ought to take some legal advice with a view to appealing. Regrettably this will cost £3k plus the legal advice. That stinks, but that's the policy and we have to live with it** :twisted:

As for the decision and whether it's "right", "wrong", "fair", "unfair" or "in line with the policy" or a combination of these, I haven't read it in too much detail so I can't comment


* that's the official line, but wider views on this matter can disagree! Things like this complaint about cover ups don't paint Nominet in a good light - although clearly there is only one side's viewpoint in that PDF.

** it's never been challenged in court as far as I know.

 

[fairplay]

I think complaining to Nominet will get the owner nowhere on this one. The DRS and the DRS experts are "independent" from Nominet* and so there is no procedure to complain about DRS decisions in this way.

If the owner really feels wronged, they ought to take some legal advice with a view to appealing. Regrettably this will cost £3k plus the legal advice. That stinks, but that's the policy and we have to live with it** :twisted:

As for the decision and whether it's "right", "wrong", "fair", "unfair" or "in line with the policy" or a combination of these, I haven't read it in too much detail so I can't comment


* that's the official line, but wider views on this matter can disagree! Things like this complaint about cover ups don't paint Nominet in a good light - although clearly there is only one side's viewpoint in that PDF.

** it's never been challenged in court as far as I know.

You're right to a degree, however complaining to representatives who are at a higher level within Nominet and by this I mean people higher than the DRS agents (who did try to help) it was Fremantle who chose to ignore all suggestions by the DRS in the mediation stage, and higher than the indepedent experts is something that SHOULD be used more.

If more people did it would bring to light the extent of the problem that is very real, is damaging and unfair, that potentially robs people of valuable assets and makes a mockery of Nominet and the procedures that are supposed to protect.

If the pdf you refer to is ours, I welcome your point that only one side is being seen to have any value in this case.

In the case of BritainsGotTalent.co.uk and Fremantle there are specific dates and deadlines that are set, on each and every occasion Fremantle was given more and I think unfair time. It may be that like TWS we will ask the question whether Nominet were trying to help them in a way that was totally inappropriate for a neutral.

It may be we will question whether it is wise to operate the DRS from within the company?

We will certainly be raising the question of the absence of a proper complaints procedure that refers matters to an "independent ombudsman."

We will look more into Mr Davies also acted for Michael Toth in the bounce.co.uk appeal – which resulted in a public apology from Nominet in respect of the way the matter was handled by their staff.

 

[retired_member34]

These are genuine questions, please take them as such.

If you truly do not wish to benefit from the show, why not simply keep developing the site on a different domain? Without benefiting from the show the domain itself is of low value (that is, if the show did not exist, then it would be of low value). Talentshowuk.co.uk? UKtalentshow.co.uk? Showyourtalent.co.uk (all available to register)?

If you do not benefit from the show, and do not wish to benefit from the show in the future, why do you think your site justifies a valuation of $x,xxx,xxx? Is no revenue and 3,000 members worth this?

 

[fairplay]

Have you lodged an appeal, if not , why not?

Just to go back to Robs question above.

In the last few years I have been able to research where big businesses have been involved 99% of the time the Big business wins!

Of those who have the guts to stand up for themsleves and their rights and go to Appeal, the outlook if they are small businesses or independents is even more dire.

In a case like this where an "Expert" has presented a case that is so clearly one sided, a case where the complainant has proven nothing (and it is up to the complainant to prove their case) a case where unsavoury things have gone on and been proven to have gone on, a case depends on and argument that is not proven, and ultimately a case where judgement is given on an income that is proven to be non-existent it is clear this "Expert" has made many mistakes and the decision should be overturned - and indeed the whole thing should be investigated!!

This is a case where the complaint was brought in bad faith, where a company (who had already made an offer to buy) and who had promised to reach an agreement, went back on their word and is an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.

 

[fairplay]

These are genuine questions, please take them as such.

If you truly do not wish to benefit from the show, why not simply keep developing the site on a different domain? Without benefiting from the show the domain itself is of low value (that is, if the show did not exist, then it would be of low value). Talentshowuk.co.uk? UKtalentshow.co.uk? Showyourtalent.co.uk (all available to register)?

If you do not benefit from the show, and do not wish to benefit from the show in the future, why do you think your site justifies a valuation of $x,xxx,xxx? Is no revenue and 3,000 members worth this?

Rob thanks for this and I will try to answer:

Why should the owner change the name?, the BritainsGotTalent.co.uk concept was an original idea of the owners daughters based on their need to find group members and based on their experience of their favourite sites Facbook and Bebo. The idea was there BEFORE Simon Cowell decided to borrow the name to regurgitate a version of Hughie Greens Opportunity Knocks!!

The name was chosen as a vehicle for unsigned British talent to market themselves, (it could only be called one name) the sites intention was to help acts upload audios and videos of their acts, to be seen by the wider public online, for members to help each other, it turned into something more when members began uploading youtube vids of many reality shows to critique whether this clip or this clip was talent?

For the owner to do this this would imply that Fremantle has the right to the name online and they dont!

The reason the site was up for sale is because the owner is due to have an operation that will mean he cannot run the site. The owner never set any valuation.

 

[retired_member34]

The reason the site was up for sale is because the owner is due to have an operation that will mean he cannot run the site.

I am sorry to hear this, hope it all goes well.

The owner never set any valuation.

I though the Sedo advert stated that he had a $x,xxx,xxx deal about to go through when the credit crunch happened and it fell through (to paraphrase). Please correct me if I am wrong.

Surely this implies a valuation, being stated in a sales pitch in this way? If someone offered me that amount for a site with 3,000 members and no revenue I might think that something was wrong.

Anyway, I wish you all the best, just think it might be best to move on is all.

Cheers.

 

[fairplay]

I am sorry to hear this, hope it all goes well.

Thanks RobMal.

I though the Sedo advert stated that he had a $x,xxx,xxx deal about to go through when the credit crunch happened and it fell through (to paraphrase). Please correct me if I am wrong.

Anyway, I wish you all the best, just think it might be best to move on is all.

Cheers.

Yes a US company in the entertainments industry came to the owner, seemingly after indentifying the potential of the site, they set the figures they were 'supposedly' prepared to pay. No-one was more suprised than the owner but figures started at xxxxxx and just kept going up, negotiations went on for some months and accounts details were exchanged but it did not happen. The owner never knew if the company were acting on behalf of anyone else?

The plot from there just continued to thicken.

He cant just move on Rob his savings and 2 years work are wrapped up in that site and just giving a corporate bully this name and rolling over isnt something that ANYONE should have to do!!

There is a broader aspect to all of this for domainers everwhere, for anyone who had an idea, for anyone who registered a name and then some big company a year or so later decides to use that name - Who simply says I have a massive legal team and much more money than you - I'm taking this name.

This is all about WHO OWNS THIS DOMAIN NAME, if Fremantle had any intention of an online presence when they say they were developing this programme they could have bought the name as it would have been available then!!

However they knew this name was registered, they knew the concept was in development and they had people register as members right from the start. They and their associates have been monitoring the sites growth since day 1; this is all about the fact that this site gets more traffic than they do and possibly about setting a precedent. They are now trying every avenue to gain this name without paying however should the owner appeal I am sure they will continue to spend even more money, when in reality they could have resolved this without all of the underhand dealings and bad feeling. And for a xx,xxx figure sum, not the xxx,xxx or x,xxx,xxx that are speculated on the web.

 

[rob]

What is your connection with the case?

 

[retired_member34]

He cant just move on Rob his savings and 2 years work are wrapped up in that site and just giving a corporate bully this name and rolling over isnt something that ANYONE should have to do!!

2 years work and his savings are wrapped up in the site, not in the domain name, that cost him around a fiver.

Put it on a new domain and carry on, if he really thinks it works as a concept entirely separate from the tv show. 2 years has gained him 30 odd inlinks and 3,000 odd members. They could all be moved onto a new domain very easily.

And for a xx,xxx figure sum.

Hmmm. Still hardly a bargain though is it, really?

Anyway, as I said earlier, I wish him all the best.

 

[sneezycheese]

I think complaining to Nominet will get the owner nowhere on this one. The DRS and the DRS experts are "independent" from Nominet* and so there is no procedure to complain about DRS decisions in this way.

...I think it would be very easy to question the 'independence' of the 'experts' as they are both contracted to and paid by Nominet. I myself would like to see a copy of their contract under Nominets new 'mission' for 'openess and transparency', but I suspect the contract may be seen in the eyes of the law as a form of employment contact and therefore unavailable for public consumption - I will ask for clarification at the next PAB meeting.

Regards,

Sneezy.