| | | Effective PR

Tuesday 21 September 2010

"Jessica" of fama PR writes regarding her firm's client SEDO.Com.

Dear Sirs

I wanted to follow up on your recent article "InfoTech: WIPO gives clear decision on 'typosquatting." There is one minor clarification we’d like to make in your reference to our client, Sedo.com. A line in the article says, "As argued by the Complainant, the Panel agrees that the fact that the Respondent is currently attempting to auction four of the disputed domain names to the highest bidder on Sedo.com, further demonstrate the Respondent’s bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names."

Sedo.com has a pretty strong policy against listing domains for sale on Sedo that are under legal dispute, so that mention does not portray the company accurately. No one notified Sedo that these were disputed domains (which the company otherwise has no way of knowing) or it would have immediately locked them as not for sale. Sedo's Security & Compliance team does this from time to time, especially in the case of auctions, when Sedo is reasonably put on notice that a domain may have legal status issues. The company does this to prevent the name from being ‘laundered’ and to protect a buyer from acquiring disputed property that could easily be taken away.

Is there any way you can remove or amend that reference so it reflects Sedo's policy more accurately? We would be very grateful!


Editor's note: the reference to which SEDO.Com's PR company refers is not editorial: it is a direct extract from the WIPO findings. The article is not, therefore, to be amended.