Affiliate Sites And The Law

[Incipience]

Tweet

Recently you may of heard that some 1200 websites were shutdown in the UK for alleged criminal activity.

What you will not have heard is that half of these sites were shut down due to advertising. One of Our sites were one such site.

We operated a site that displayed the product catalogue of a UK footwear retailer. We had focussed on UGG Boots. The site has been operation for around 2 years, and Generated over £20,000 in sales.

Now the email.

Nominet sent us an email stating that due to a report from the e-crime unit, and due to criminal activity the domain was being suspended, for any issues please contact the e-crime unit at New Scotland Yard.

Now.. the website in question did not trade in the sense of taking user information, nor did it take payment, the site simply displayed the product images and descriptions from the feed provided by the retailer.

After a week of chasing both nominet and the e-crime unit, Nominet's has their hands tied. I have asked the e-crime unit to provide evidence of a crime or retract its statement. However they have admitted that no crime exists, but they will not inform nominet and they state that UGG has not authorised the site to trade using their name and therefore it should be shut down.

I have demanded that I have a right to due process and surely a corporation can not dictate to the police on what I believe to be a Civil Matter.

Suffice to say the Retailer has agreed that I have an agreement with them and part of that agreement does allow us to affiliate with them and all that entails.

However the e-crime unit will not budge unless we have written contracts that state we are allowed "sell to trade using there brand name "

I would like others opinions.. surely a statement such as this and the actions such as these set a dangerous precedent for all Affiliate Marketers and Webmasters.

Do I have it totally wrong?

[Stuart]

What was the domain name of your site, is there a bigger picture on a brand name URL that has not come up in your recent cnoversations?

If its not a brand name URL, I can't see how this site can be shut down, you are simply marketing products, as long as all the content is factual and not made up rubish that does gives false information then I can't really see how they can do this...

[sgpratley]

Depends what the site domain name is.

Passing off is a criminal offence if it can be proved that there was deliberate attempt to mislead. Basically if you're using trademarks in your domain names without permission, you're going to lose some or all of your sites at some stage, it's the risk you take for the short-term gain.

Strange that they say no crime exists if that's the case.

I imagine that as well as the fraudulent, overseas fake shops, UGG probably have some nasty lawyers ready to go after damages from anyone on the list they can drag into a courtroom, probably not very much as long as whatever you were promoting were genuine UGG's.

If not, if you're using your own brand for the site, or a generic name, then I'd make a big stink about it to a tabloid journalist.

If it doesn't contain anything about UGG Boots then what they are saying is that any retailer could also be shafted for advertising anything but their own brand goods.

[Incipience]

I agree that passing off if a deliberate mis-representation could be considered criminal, otherwise it is civil.

We only ever displayed genuine UGG boots from the retailers feed. we retained the description and (R) in the description titles, and the site had set of google ads.

Thats its.. nothing else.

The Structure was.

The site displayed a selection of random UGG products an when a user clicked on that product they were directed to the retailers product description page.

If this was a case of me being naughty and trying to pretend to be anything more than an affiliate sites then for sure I would put my hands up and thank myself lucky for not getting put in the docks.

I take offence at being criminalised when no crime existed.. if this was a matter of infringement then DRS me or take me to court.. but clearly this was not it.

Here is the press release MPS e-Crime unit takes down scam websites - Metropolitan Police Service

I dont want to be put in the same category as those sites listed and I truly feel wronged here..

I asked the police to provide a crime reference number and evidence and they keep ignoring that, and said that the email to Nominet may have been a bit strong..

"website is being used to conduct criminal activities"

nominet said they are only relaying what they were told, and their hands are tied.. however I have provided Nominet with the statement of being told that nothing criminal with the site so they are now talking with them..

But this whole thing just stinks of something..

As I said if I was in the wrong then I put my hands up, but I thought and still do think that affiliate sites are fine.

I spoke to the retailer and they agree that its ok for us to display their products in the manner to which we did. They are upset loosing out on the sale I brought in.

I am in two minds to kick off or just leave it.. but I do fear the precedent.. clearly the E-crime department have no concept of Affiliate Marketing. His words not mine.

[sgpratley]

I'd kick off if I were you.

I thought this story mean that the Met had finally got their arses in gear and it would all help consumer confidence a bit.

Looks like they're still the same self-important retards who think they're judge, jury and executioner in every instance.

Go for the Guardian, they love a bit of scaremongering about 1984-style civil liberties restraint, they know what the internet is too, unlike the Mail who will accuse anyone with a computer of being a paedophile.

What was the domain name?

[Supercod]

I am a Nominet Member, have been for over 10 years. If you supply me with the domain, I will check some stuff and if I agree with you I will then bring it up with Nominet, alert members and so on as the last thing we need is Kangaroo Courts. I was at a lunch with Nominet last week in Edinburgh and was told about this "crackdown", it was explained that most of the owners of the domains were overseas (mostly Russia, China that type of place) and no legal action could be taken but Nominet can take action under their terms.

Now here is the thing, if they have got it wrong and an Affiliate based in the UK got taken out without any due processes then it's very worrying for us all and we will need to find out why etc otherwise we are all moving to .com but then your in the jurisdiction of the USA then and legit UK business should feel safe to go about their business in the UK Internet space.

By the way this is Government led pressure on Nominet, the Government are looking at Nominet and making them jump hoops right now or they could take control off them. It could well be back in Government red tape land and you can bet the cost of running a site will sky rocket if that happens.

Several folk on this forum are Nominet members and over at the main domainer forum as well so we do have a strong voice, if it turns out a mistake was made but would need to know more first.

[Supercod]

By the way if your wondering if the domain names are back on the market or what to look for, check this one out. Clearly if they are faking being Tiffany as is alleged then they should be kicked out as it gives .uk a bad name.

WHOIS Query

You will notice that the domain is paid until 12-Dec-2011 but has got

Registration status:
Registered until renewal date.
*** This registration has been SUSPENDED. ***

You hardly ever see SUSPENDED when a domain is paid up renewal 2 years in advance, indeed I don't think I have ever seen that.

[Supercod]

Found this article

Scotland Yard crackdown exposes Google's flaws | Blog | Econsultancy

Talks about "More than 400 of the websites caught in the Operation Papworth dragnet were selling fake Ugg boots."

Worth a read.

[bapages]

Have they targetted just Nominet registered domains?

[Incipience]

Supercod thanks.. After reading that.. I think perhaps I am in part to blame for this then. Actually thanks to you all.. so I guess I should put my hands up to this one.

the domain was ugsdirect .co.uk... apparently its only in Australia the term UG is generic for Sheepskin Boots.. looks like UGG has gone crazy on trademark registration.

..I reactivated the site locally and while I concede a plausible understanding.. I am still unsure as to the actions taken.. the website has my Company Name on it and a link back to my company website that includes all my contact information

all links go to the Retailer..

I did a whois look up and it looks like I opted out claiming to be an individual.. bugger..

Thanks again guys, I knew if anyone could set the record straight you could.

Despite all this.. Only Genuine UGGs were available on my site, and that is blatantly clear.. Bundled with the fact that my contact information was on it and that it linked to a genuine retailer.

But stepping outside of the box, I can see the bigger picture now.

[Kyle]

Yeah, it sounds like you were in the wrong place at the wrong time and just unfortunately got caught in the wide net cast by Scotland Yard.

There were quite a few of these Russia/China owned .co.uk fake/scam websites predominantly focusing on Ugg, Tiffanys and Links Of London from what I saw, and they were dominating the SERPs and the Sponsored Ads.

Also, these sites were quite brazenly detailed copies of the official sites and for a lot of them it was very hard to tell that they were not legit - when I was buying my girlfriend a Links bracelet a few months ago I had to whois every single .co.uk domain that appeared to offer any kind of discount off the retail price. Turns out all of them were registered to China/Russia (it still confuses me why these guys didnt shell out for privacy protection? Weird). I have a suspicion that a large percentage of these products in circulation are unknowingly fakes.

Having said that, I think that some responsibility lies with the merchants themselves - whether they were were aware of the scammers and just underestimated the volume and reach of what they were doing, or that they were just not focused on the online channel enough to notice these fake sites dominating the search engines, they could still have had them removed very quickly by contacting a rep at Google, or if that failed, getting their solicitor to send over a quick letter to the big G.

But I could be wrong - the merchants could have been fighting with Google about this for a while and have gotten nowhere for some reason.

[Incipience]

I do get it.. but clearly my site looked nothing like the retailer.. the title of the page even had my company name in it.

I guess I took offence at being branded in the same category as those other sites.

I am based on the UK and the address on the Site is not a Po BOX its a real address with real contact information.. a quick call would sort it all out..

I swear to you all that my site was 100% linked only to one affiliate program and I have been in touch with them several timestoday.

I got the feeling from nominet that they were gonna be doing something as they asked if I would update the who is.. so I did and then they were going to speak to legal as I think they agree that this action basically circumvented the DRS..

My site was not listed in the top 50 of google.. so I cant claim to props on SERPS.

Really appreciate everyones comments..

I do still worry that as affiliates, will the day come that we will need permission from the brand holders in the future.. what will this mean for e-stores who sell many brands and use affiliates.

Will this removal of due process be a sign of the future..

Even worse.. when did the UK become so week that we have Corporations Dictating Law.

Perhaps a lesson in this for all. Assume Nothing.

[Sabcom]

Next time there are scallys causing trouble down my street, I will phone the police and inform them that the yobs have registered a domain containing the brand name of an over rated australian fashion item. They might turn up then.

[confuscius]

Next time there are scallys causing trouble down my street, I will phone the police and inform them that the yobs have registered a domain containing the brand name of an over rated australian fashion item. They might turn up then.

Would that be the new 'ugg' a hoodie campaign? :scared

[Grockle]

Even worse.. when did the UK become so week that we have Corporations Dictating Law.

Similar meat, same gravy Shops 'unfair' over shoplifting cases - Home News, UK - The Independent

It seems to me that many big businesses now consider themselves above the law.