Live exporters found breaching rules in Kuwait
Yet more Egypt cruelty footage emerges
Wilkie challenges PM on live export
National Volunteers Week: Celebrating kindness
Justice for Jacob
MLA: The new Animals Australia?
12 March 2012 Have your say
Why is a powerful live export lobby buying up 'Animals Australia' website addresses? Help solve the mystery for your chance to win!
You've probably seen MLA's work, even if you don't know who they are. Remember Sam Neil prancing around with a (largely herbivorous) orangutan trying to get us to eat meat? Or hefty Sam Kekovich — asking us all to sacrifice a lamb on Australia Day? MLA (or 'Meat & Livestock Australia') is the red meat industry's marketing muscle.
They have also been busy defending and supporting the live export trade.
Many people don't know that MLA receives levy money from the sale of all sheep, cattle and goats. Sadly, MLA's multi-million dollar budget has failed to protect exported animals from the most extreme suffering, as evidenced by Animals Australia's most recent live export investigation. On the contrary — a significant part of MLA's live export budget has gone directly to facilitating, promoting, defending and expanding the cruel live trade.
In the last financial year alone, MLA spent over $1,000,000 on marketing initiatives to try to get us all to 'like' live animal exports [1]. Some of this money went into pumping out dozens of feel-good YouTube videos, and the upkeep of a now-defunct propaganda website called 'Live Export Care' [2].
But that's not all.
We have also discovered that some of that money went to purchasing web domains, including: 'AnimalsAustralia.com.au', 'AnimalsAustralia.net.au', 'AnimalsAustralia.info' and 'AnimalsAustralia.net'. Why would they do that you might ask? Do they admire our work? Imitation is the most sincere form of flattery after all! Or were there other sneaky reasons at play? We don't know — but we do know that buying up domain names is a strategy used by some companies in an attempt to undermine their competitors or those they consider to be 'threats'. After all, this tactic has been used to:
- misdirect people who are actually looking for one's competitor and accidentally type in the wrong domain [3]
- unscrupulously boost one's own web traffic [4]
- create a fake website that fraudulently poses as something its not [5]
- hold one's competitor to ransom by offering to sell domains back to them at an exorbitant price [6]
Because we are still patiently waiting to see what MLA will publish to their new 'Animals Australia' websites, we can't be sure what their intention was. Maybe it was virtuous — perhaps MLA has turned over a new leaf and is secretly planning a merger with Animals Australia! Whatever they were thinking — the wait is almost unbearable. And theories abound in the Animals Australia office.
To put this mystery to rest, we're asking for your help: what do you think MLA plans to do with their four new 'Animals Australia' websites? Comment below. The most creative answer will win a copy of Jonathan Safran Foer's best-selling book Eating Animals and a fair-dinkum Animals Australia (.org) t-shirt!
Contest closes midnight on March 31st. Click here for contest rules.
And the winner is ...
Ray — who appealed to our good nature by giving MLA the benefit of the doubt and reminding us that we all make mistakes. Ray points out that accidentally buying up 'Animals Australia' domains could happen as innocently as accidentally wearing your pants on your head, or going to the shops to buy apples and coming home with a new car... We've all been there. Right? Okay, perhaps not. But the folk at MLA have understandably been a little stressed out lately trying to combat Animals Australia's campaign to end live exports, while trying to defend the indefensible. After all, one has to be crazy to think live export isn't cruel. Well done Ray, you've won a copy of Eating Animals by Jonathan Safran Foer and a ridgy didge Animals Australia T-shirt for your troubles!
References
[1] MLA 2011 AGM
[2] Live export industry unhappy with communications leadership | http://www.abc.net.au/rural/news/content/201203/s3445815.htm
[3] How to Legally Steal Traffic From Your Competitors | http://blog.kaizenet.com/how-to-legally-steal-traffic-from-your-competitors
[4] Should I Buy My Competitors' Domain Names? | http://www.webstrategiesinc.com/blog/should-i-buy-my-competitors-domain-names/
[5] Phishing http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phishing
[6] Melbourne IT | http://www.melbourneit.com.au/successbox/how-to-choose-a-good-australian-domain-name-for-your-business/
Post a commentYour Say: 118 comments
+ 12I think this is a big WIN for the REAL Animals Australia.
MLA's actions should be exposed to the wider community!
They have proved that they are morally corrupt and have been for many many years,
Don't these people have a conscious ? Obviously not.
I am a 4th generation farmers' daughter who still owns the property that my family settled on 1853 and has always been opposed to live animal export because we care for the welfare of the animals we have a duty of care for.
I have no doubt you've already got your lawyers onto it and you can rest assured that you've got the support of thousands (I wish I could say millions) who will stand their ground right beside you.
EVISCERATE them AA, just like they've done to millions of defenseless animals.
They are about to announce a major shift in strategy and will soon be rebadging as .....
MELONS, LENTILS & AVOCADO!
... if only animals could speak a language that humans understood, then they would be accorded the respect & compassion that they truly deserve ...
The truth will come out in the end.
What shall this industrial spy get up to next??? Can't wait for the next installment of this fascinating saga!!!
All in all a dreadfull situation that should be exposed for what it is, a fraud upon everyone who innocently tries to obtain information about animal welfare in the agricultural industry and an admission by the industry that they have no credence apart from what they obtain by stealing from Animals Australia.
(1) The disputed domains names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Animal Australia has rights;
(2) MLA does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of disputed domain names; and
(3) The disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith by MLA.
then the panel will terminate the domain names or transfer them to Animals Australia.
A detailed guide in relation to making such a complaint is available at:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/guide/index.html
Good luck!
This page has a brief summary: http://www.domainregistration.com.au/infocentre/info-domain-cybersquatting.php
and this page is the actual dispute resolution website: http://www.auda.org.au/policies/auda-2010-05/
At the very least you may have a good shot at grounds (ii) and (iii) extracted below:
b. Evidence of Registration or Use in Bad Faith. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to another person for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of a name, trademark or service mark from reflecting that name or mark in a corresponding domain name; or
(iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business or activities of another person; or
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's name or mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of that web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.
'Usually people only have a case to get a domain back if the name directly infringes on a registered trademark, matches a company name closely such as someone registering mcburgers.com.au ... McDonalds could claim that as infringement or in some cases can be proven that the name deliberately hurts the brand, product or business, or is designed to captialize on someone elses brand.'
Now, don't take that as legally true (he's not a lawyer), but it would be worth investigating - this would seem to be a case of MLA buying up domains belonging to a rival entity; I guess it depends on what they do with the sites as to whether it's designed to hurt the AA name, etc.
Compassionate Shopper Bag
37 O’Connell St,
North Melbourne
Victoria 3051, Australia
Ph: (+61) 03 9329 6333
Fax: (+61) 03 9329 6441
Freecall: 1800 888 584
Donate
Become a member
Subscribe to e-updates
