.uk always.co.uk acquired by P&G for $21,450 (£15,000)

[davidthornton]

DNJournal has reported the sale of always.co.uk for $21,450 (£15,000). According to the WHOIS the new registrant is The Procter and Gamble Company which took over the registration on 1st June 2016.

I note that the matching second level domain name always.uk, which the third level always.co.uk domain name would have held the Right of First Refusal (ROFR) on, was registered on 30th May 2016, two days prior to the registrant change, and hasn't been transferred with always.co.uk.

 

[terry voight]

Wow, that's interesting David. If the registrant of always.uk was the owner of the .co.uk, then it may be that they are hoping for a second pay-day somewhere along the line?

 

[davidthornton]

Wow, that's interesting David. If the registrant of always.uk was the owner of the .co.uk, then it may be that they are hoping for a second pay-day somewhere along the line?

I don't have the previous WHOIS record for always.co.uk record but in my opinion it seems likely that the current registrant of always.uk is associated with the former registrant of always.co.uk. I suspect I know who the previous registrant of always.co.uk was given the uk scene is pretty small.

It also seems likely, based on the two day time period between registration of always.uk and transfer of always.co.uk, that always.uk was registered with the knowledge of a third party interest in (and potential pending transfer of) always.co.uk.

Some who are involved with *.uk would frown on a registrant receiving an inquiry for a .co.uk which has the ROFR on the matching .uk, negotiating a sale of the .co.uk and then registering the .uk to keep just before transferring the .co.uk.

What none of us know is whether the new registrant of always.co.uk discussed always.uk, or not, during the negotiations.

 

[terry voight]

What none of us know is whether the new registrant of always.co.uk discussed always.uk, or not, during the negotiations.

I wouldn't want to suggest that a large company, like P&G, are in any way naive but the ".uk" marketplace is relatively new and it may well be the case that the corporate bod at P&G didn't actually know there was a ".uk"...

The point is, however, is that they may very well need the ".uk" and if they're not willing to stump up the cash to buy it then they will need to prove "bad faith" on the part of the registrant. This may be fairly easy for them to do, as they'd likely be able to prove a connection to the .co.uk registrant and the fact that they, or someone known to them, registered the .uk in bad faith in order to profit from it financially.

Anyway, P&G should know better!

 

[davidthornton]

I wouldn't want to suggest that a large company, like P&G, are in any way naive but the ".uk" marketplace is relatively new and it may well be the case that the corporate bod at P&G didn't actually know there was a ".uk"...

Looking at the WHOIS record for always.co.uk I note that the Nominet Registrar is now Corporate Service Company (CSC) therefore I presume they handled the acquisition for P&G. What I am unaware of is how they handled the acquisition; was it direct or through a marketplace for instance?

I would expect CSC to know about .uk (I know some of their staff do) but perhaps the particular member of staff that handled the negotiation did not, assuming CSC did handle the negotiation.

The point is, however, is that they may very well need the ".uk" and if they're not willing to stump up the cash to buy it then they will need to prove "bad faith" on the part of the registrant. This may be fairly easy for them to do, as they'd likely be able to prove a connection to the .co.uk registrant and the fact that they, or someone known to them, registered the .uk in bad faith in order to profit from it financially.

Anyway, P&G should know better!

It could be difficult because the transfer of always.co.uk did not occur until two days after always.uk was registered, therefore I am not sure that the Nominet Dispute Resolution Service ("DRS") would have any bearing in this instance. It might depend on what was discussed and disclosed during the negotiations.

I certainly cannot say anyone has done anything incorrectly or below board without more detailed information.

It will be interesting to watch what happens with always.uk.

 

[terry voight]

I certainly cannot say anyone has done anything incorrectly or below board without more detailed information.

Yes, absolutely. No one can say anyone has done anything wrong at this point and my earlier comment about "easy to prove" and "facts" was simply me playing "devils advocate" and following a thought to a conclusion that may well be proven to be incorrect.

From what you have said, however, I find it hard to believe that the purchase of the .uk is not connected in some way to the .co.uk sale, and it is very likely that this sale would have been made binding before the .uk name was registered...

Anyway, good luck to both parties!

 

[davidthornton]

I have looked at the DNJournal table of ccTLD sales again. The always.co.uk domain name appears to have been sold via Sedo. It's not stated whether the domain name was listed for sale there, or acquired for the current registrant by one of their brokers, or just transacted via their escrow service.

 

[peace800]

It is my firm belief that the .uk extension is a failed extension that hasn't taken off and will never take off.

Every day on British TV, multi million pound British companies are promoting their co.uk websites heavily. The Co.uk extension is so heavily dominant (apart from the .com of course) in the UK that I feel a public conscious shift to the .uk will never happen.

I cannot see companies switching over to .uk. It was just too late in the day to introduce the .uk extension back in 2014.

I don't think that the company will lose anything even if they didn't register the .uk.

Co.uk in my opinion is the second most popular extension in the world after com and generic or product related Co.uk domains will remain premium and will command high prices.