Quote:
Originally Posted by RazorSharpe
Unfortunately for you, I'm not known for trolling. I asked a legitimate question about those two sites and you called me a troll then. My question to you is, after me bringing this to your attention about a week ago, why are these sites still running on your platform?
I totally understand that it is not possible for you to know every single dating site out there but I am also pretty certain that you are more than familiar with 2 fairly large ones in the sector you work in.
Having said that, even if you weren't aware of naughtyconnect and hornymatches, you have been aware of them for the past week since I brought them to your attention. If the owners of those sites have given you permission to create the .co.za versions of their site because they were unable to monetise that particular market then all you need to do is say so. Calling me a troll for asking a legitimate question is highly unprofessional and not doing anything about the sites I brought to your attention seems unethical.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Connor
I did see the thread, yes. Did you consider that you maybe did not get an immediate response because the person had to get the answer for you? There are new people being hired here, and this is a new company setup, all this is explained in the threads you're posting in here.
As for your Nikke example, apples and oranges. Domain names are not shoes. There are differences in scope and complexity. There are processes in place to determine what is infringing, and what is not. It makes sense for companies to use these processes instead of making unilateral and uninformed decisions.
I'm NOT saying this example I'm about to give is the case here, I just use it for the sake of example. What if the domain names you're upset about are in fact owned by the copyright holder? And they want to run another site for whatever reason, and list it under a different company name, again for whatever reason? What if the domains you are pointing at are owned by people who first used these words before the .com owners did, but just haven't pressed the issue? What if there are laws or rules in place regarding domain names from specific countries that have some bearing on this situation?
This isn't to say that any of the above things are likely or apply in this case... it's just an example to show why it makes SENSE for there to be a process that the stake holders need to go through when there is a dispute. And there IS such a process in this case that can be followed (without charge or expense, it seems, unlike when there are disputes related to another domain name extension we all know and don't love). This is also why it would be a really bad idea for a company to do what you're suggesting they SHOULD do, and react to a post on GFY made by someone who is not a stakeholder.
|
I have taken the time to read your replies; I'd appreciate you took the time to read mine.
So when you give an example, it's fine but mine are apples and oranges, interesting. Let's not dwell on this though; it's trivial in the grand scheme of things.
In my reply I did say that I understood that it may not be possible to verify every domain and even the fact that the original copyright holder may have allowed permission for the domains to be used so you rehashing those possibilities in a "maybe" scenario seem kind of weird.
Are you involved with this company? Are you a stakeholder? I'm just curious since if you were you'd know if any of those possibilities were true by simply sending an email to the owner(s) of the .co.za domains. It's not that hard to get to the bottom of what could possibly be a violation of someone's brand rights and as stakeholders I would have thought this would have been just as important to you as it is and should be for people using your platform legitimately.
Let's move away from that for just a moment. Why take the domains off your "client" page? Why not just leave them on there like you have the sites until your "process" was completed? Why would a veteran of this industry like yourself want the brand owners to contact him if they have a problem? Isn't it in your best interests to contact them since it was brought to your attention?
Note that I'm assuming you have a stake in this company and I would be wrong but the OP seems to be leaving this in your hands and you seem to have an intimate knowledge of the processes this company has. Forgive me if my assumption is incorrect.