3 ms·

I don't have a side to take in this, but I think it should be pointed out that scoopon have a real business that's been going some time and seems to be reasonab

I don't have a side to take in this, but I think it should be pointed out that scoopon have a real business that's been going some time and seems to be reasonably profitable. The name thing seems a bit underhanded, but I think it's disingenuous to simply label them domain squatters [Edit: I think I may have a bias against US companies intruding on Australian turf. The whole ugg boot saga has left a pretty sour taste]

tjmc 16y ago
Agreed. My wife's business recently did a deal on Scoopon and they were great to deal with. What a pity that they've resorted to gazumping a competitor for their trademark and domain here. Totally unnecessary and disappointing.
- khafra 16y ago
  Tangentially, I was astounded and gratified to find out that "gazumping" is a real word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazumping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazumping
notahacker 16y ago
It's not squatting in a conventional sense; seems more of an anti-competitive thing to make it harder for brand-name rivals to enter the market without acquiring the company. Having seen the number of acquisitions of local competitors Groupon has made (including some operations in South America accused of shady tactics themselves) it's easy to understand Scoopon's motivations, if not their lack of ethics. And chances are if Groupon did build or acquire a successful Australian operation they'd severely dent any hopes Scoopon had of making big profits. It's a bit of a risk when WIPO or an Australian court can potentially take the domain off them for nothing though...
pchristensen 16y ago
If they're running such a great business, why would they use a blatantly anti-competitive legal maneuver? Furthermore, if they do want to run the business, why are they making Groupon buy them? Why not just raise the sale price for the domain/trademark? This move makes Scoopon look like a build-to-flip, rather than a meaningful business on its own, which would worry me if I were one of their customers or merchants.

tjmc 16y ago

Agreed. My wife's business recently did a deal on Scoopon and they were great to deal with. What a pity that they've resorted to gazumping a competitor for their trademark and domain here. Totally unnecessary and disappointing.

khafra 16y ago
Tangentially, I was astounded and gratified to find out that "gazumping" is a real word: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazumping http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gazumping

notahacker 16y ago

It's not squatting in a conventional sense; seems more of an anti-competitive thing to make it harder for brand-name rivals to enter the market without acquiring the company. Having seen the number of acquisitions of local competitors Groupon has made (including some operations in South America accused of shady tactics themselves) it's easy to understand Scoopon's motivations, if not their lack of ethics. And chances are if Groupon did build or acquire a successful Australian operation they'd severely dent any hopes Scoopon had of making big profits. It's a bit of a risk when WIPO or an Australian court can potentially take the domain off them for nothing though...

pchristensen 16y ago

If they're running such a great business, why would they use a blatantly anti-competitive legal maneuver? Furthermore, if they do want to run the business, why are they making Groupon buy them? Why not just raise the sale price for the domain/trademark? This move makes Scoopon look like a build-to-flip, rather than a meaningful business on its own, which would worry me if I were one of their customers or merchants.