Did K&L buy Saber Tactical?

[orion]

Eh, loosely checking the domain history, this is nothing new. And for those saying you won't spend a cent on companies that buy domains like this...well, doubt there's much you'll ever buy of anything brand name, in any store, ever--or even walk into most major stores. 

The reason you don't see it on the daily is most companies pay to reclaim domains as this is a regular thing these days. Reminds me of the .xxx sites...colleges/universities were the biggest purchasers of those domains initially.

If they want a domain that is part of the brand I don't see anything wrong with that, but this is not the same as reclaiming a domain... Unless K&L was preparing a birthday surprise

You never know.

Here's the beef I have with this big stink being raised right now:

We all know this happened awhile ago, where was everyone's opinion back then? 

(Removing this commentary about the IG post as it looks like IG was to blame.)

In my opinion, if Saber wanted to make a stink of it when it happened MONTHS ago, fair game. I have issue with folks riding the Public Relations bandwagon because a post on AGN gets hyped up.

For as much finger pointing as folks want to make at KL for whatever transpired with the domain, waiting to jump on the internet bandwagon is worse (in my opinion). If they wanted to say something about it, say it when it happened, not riding on the back of the internet...this passive/aggressive behavior has no place in a business model (edit-the best part is I forget sabertacticalinc has always been their website--damn internet getting me all caught up in it. Remembering that actually makes this whole freak out hilarious...). 

Again, just my opinion. (And to be clear, I own products from both companies and exclusively use DFL moderators--and continue to enjoy Orion's mag inserts

)

No one knew they did that before, we all found out today. I don't follow your logic.

 

[idaho_varminter]

Legal? Yes. Good business move? Perhaps? Ethical? Not in my opinion. I lost a lot of respect for K&L over this. 

 

[Dairyboy]

Being legal and being the right thing to do are 2 different things in this situation. Seems rather lowly to me as well. Kind of deceiving. Just my opinion though.

 

[UpNorthAirGunner]

I mean.... C'mon K&L....really? Reading through this thread and shaking my head because there are so many comments here that don't understand the ramifications legally behind a business decision like this, let alone the political ramifications that have rippled since this came to light. 

I've been a marketing and business development consultant for over 20 years and I've seen competitors buy Google Adwords using keyword search terms and phrases using their competition's name or keyword stuffing their website copy with their competitor's product names (I won't name names, but I have seen this even in the airgun industry) in the hopes of showing up higher in search results when someone is searching for their competitors product, but this? K&L buying the domain name of their direct competitor? Wow! Just WOW!

So to fill in some of the misunderstanding of how this all works (which is grossly indicated by many of the comments in this thread).... What probably happened when Saber Tactical came into existence a few years ago and was looking to set up their website with the specific domain name (www.sabertactical.com), it was already taken by another unrelated company in an unrelated industry.

I see it happen all the time when I work with clients. Sometimes new businesses will often choose to name their company something totally different because the domain name they want to use as their company name is already taken or they choose something similar like www.SaberTacticalLLC.com, which is what is looks like what happened. 

What most likely happened next was K&L stumbled upon the fact that the original owner of SaberTactical.com (not the Saber Tactical in the airgun industry) allowed the domain name registration to lapse since they weren't using it anymore or went out of business.

This is often a shade of grey when companies are operating in totally different industry, but when you are playing in the same sandbox - there are not only ethical lines that have been crossed here, but also legal ones as well especially since they obviously knowingly did this as a business tactic and also has consumer protection ramifications that has protections under the Federal Government and anti-phishing laws. 

Don't believe me? Companies that knowingly have bought domain names that are even just typo-squatting (buying a domain name that is just slightly misspelled to dupe website visitors) have been slapped with HUGE judgements against them. Hell - the genius that bought FAKEBOOK.com to drive traffic to their website instead of FACEBOOK.com got slapped with a 2.8 million dollar poop sandwich surprise! https://www.theverge.com/2013/5/1/4290490/facebook-typosquatting-lawsuit-damages-cybersquatters

I actually kind of feel bad for whoever at K&L made this intentional decision because they could literally get buried by this business move. I am no lawyer, but there are laws that address this regardless of the "ethical" stink test. Saber Tactical could potentially sue them right out of existence. Looks like Saber Tactical legal counsel should be looking to the Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en

 

[UpNorthAirGunner]

Legal? Yes. Good business move? Perhaps? Ethical? Not in my opinion. I lost a lot of respect for K&L over this.

Could be totally illegal actually... See my comment about Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy: https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/help/dndr/udrp-en and consumer protection through laws established specifically to stop this. Cybersquatting is prohibited by federal law under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA). HUGE legal ramifications, especially if K&L tries to hold the www.SaberTactical.com domain ransom and tries to charge them money for the domain. The "first come - first serve" approach to how domains are bought and registered only goes so far, and was the reason why these federal laws were put in place. I would think this totally crosses into legal waters that stinks of cybersquatting, but again - I am not a lawyer.

 

[idaho_varminter]

I own a Wildcat MkIII, so there are not a ton of aftermarket accessories available. I am lusting after an Impact M3, however, that has a huge aftermarket. Some of those products available have competing options between Saber and K&L. If the day comes when I need an optional product that both companies make a solution for, I’ll choose Saber. If I want something that K&L offers, but Saber doesn’t, I can live without it. This was a douchebag move. 

 

[ram2jeep]

Looks like this thread has made a difference or someone got to K&L because when you go to SaberTactical.com it shows coming soon and nothing related to K&L at all.

 

[Glem.Chally]

Yeah real slippery, at first I thought "good one" but after some more thought it's just a greasy move. And I also haven't known about this for months, found out with this thread.

 

[Long_Gun_Dallas]

Ugh, what a mess. I saw Sabre's public stement earlier. WTH and SMH

 

[mtnGhost]

Looks like this thread has made a difference or someone got to K&L because when you go to SaberTactical.com it shows coming soon and nothing related to K&L at all.

Or mass hallucination?  

Scenarios like this are just a relatively common SEO practice. I have serious doubts that there were any damages incurred, and I'd be willing to bet 100:1 that Saber relies on distributors exponentially more than someone trying to type out an incorrect domain name. 

It's just the internet. A 101 level lesson for anyone serious in doing online business - secure the .com/net/orgs for the business name, along with probable misspellings #themoreyouknow

 

[UpNorthAirGunner]

Looks like this thread has made a difference or someone got to K&L because when you go to SaberTactical.com it shows coming soon and nothing related to K&L at all.

Or mass hallucination?  

Scenarios like this are just a relatively common SEO practice. I have serious doubts that there were any damages incurred, and I'd be willing to bet 100:1 that Saber relies on distributors exponentially more than someone trying to type out an incorrect domain name. 

It's just the internet. A 101 level lesson for anyone serious in doing online business - secure the .com/net/orgs for the business name, along with probable misspellings #themoreyouknow

#themoreyouknow??? Everything you just typed was wasted internet bandwidth. This is a Search Engine Optimization (SEO) common practice? Here is some free business development / marketing advise as it looks like you may have fell asleep in this 101 lesson to which you are referring.

Before i continue - go read up on the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act (ACPA) and Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDNDRP). I have had clients who have had great success winning back their domain name through ICANN arbitration and one who actually was awarded damages due to the nature of how the domain purchased was being used to attack my client and damage their business and then trying to hold it ransom with a ridiculous purchase price to buy the domain. 

If I had a client who suggested we use this kind of practice as part of our business development / marketing strategy, I would STRONGLY advise them against it nor would I continue to work with them as a client if they insisted to do so. Google sees this cybersquatting as black hat tactics and will ding your SEO / SERP score for even trying such a tactic. So K&L most likely already shot themselves in the foot in the eyes of the almighty and all seeing SERP Supreme Court Ruling of the Google Algorithm. 

Legal or not (that is for the courts to decide) using a domain name to point to a page that has nothing to do with that "thing" or even buying Google Adwords with keywords around a competitors name to point to a page that has nothing to do with that competitors products gets scored lower and usually has no positive effect. This is a Google Adwords practice is a common tactic, but not even close to what has occurred in this situation. 

The difference is cybersquatting is most likely illegal where buying Google Adwords campaigns around your competitors products or services isn't illegal, but your ad will score much lower if the targeted landing page has nothing to do with the search term. Trying to light a Google bomb by keyword stuffing a page with a competitors name or name of their products in the hopes your website shows up higher in SERP is so 2004 SEO strategies! Buying a competitors domain name or even one similar to point to your brand that is in direct competition or to steal traffic that is obviously intended for the other company has all kinds of legal and consumer protection laws behind it. 

Now if K&L would have bought CustomFXParts.com or something like that where it is about their product that competes in the same space as Saber Tactical, that is more than legal and actually a good practice. But in this situation, the Google Algorithm becomes the judge and jury of "let the best website win" to score better in search ranking based an entire series of factors. But again, this situation with K&L buying Saber Tactical's domain name seems like an obvious nefarious move. So I hope that helps with a better understanding of what SEO is and isn't. #TheMoreYouKnow

 

[dasman]

I tend to agree that the move by K&L to buy and use the Sabertactical.com domain to point to their website is a rather low rent tactic. I for one am not impressed. I know that it is absolutely legal, so no issue there, but frankly it leaves an unpleasant taste in my mouth.

Chris

This^^^ less likely to spend my money there.

 

[mtnGhost]

If you have faithful optimism in a law firm being able to accomplish anything but bill out hours to Saber, then you're out of your element. How and what are they going to prove forensically?? There's plenty of Youtube PhD in the realm of ethical SEO practices & legal matters for sure, but having seen far worse instances of malicious blackhat SEO fraud cases that went nowhere (despite irrefutable evidence of copy theft and site cloning on landing pages - I'd take bets with anyone that "ASGH". What did Saber lose?? My guess is nothing worth suing over.


Fun fact- this domain was first registered in 2006, it looks to have been registered and owned by domain brokerages for most of its existence. If you know anything about the domain business, well-funded brokerages have bought up (programmatically) nearly all expired domains and those containing keywords|keyphrases. When your domain portfolio has over 10MM domains, you don't usually pay more than $2/yr (if that) for .com's with the registrar.

These brokerages are the real domain squatters - if you forget to renew your domain, they'll acquire it and sell it back to you for ~$3300-3500 minimum. They can theoretically hold out for 150 years, and still turn a profit once the domain is sold.

I understand online commerce folks get emotional and butt hurt when their competition does something they deem unethical or even questionably legal, but at the end of the day there are those that take their branding seriously enough to secure the .com/.net/.org for their business identity. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but my professional experience in various online commerce industries has taught me to have no sympathy for anyone doing good business that skimps out on domain purchasing. Did Saber decline to spend a couple/few grand on what is CLEARLY a better domain than the *inc?

Also, should the White House sue for antifa.com redirecting to whitehouse.gov?

 

[UpNorthAirGunner]

If you have faithful optimism in a law firm being able to accomplish anything but bill out hours to Saber, then you're out of your element. How and what are they going to prove forensically?? There's plenty of Youtube PhD in the realm of ethical SEO practices & legal matters for sure, but having seen far worse instances of malicious blackhat SEO fraud cases that went nowhere (despite irrefutable evidence of copy theft and site cloning on landing pages - I'd take bets with anyone that "ASGH". What did Saber lose?? My guess is nothing worth suing over.


Fun fact- this domain was first registered in 2006, it looks to have been registered and owned by domain brokerages for most of its existence. If you know anything about the domain business, well-funded brokerages have bought up (programmatically) nearly all expired domains and those containing keywords|keyphrases. When your domain portfolio has over 10MM domains, you don't usually pay more than $2/yr (if that) for .com's with the registrar.

These brokerages are the real domain squatters - if you forget to renew your domain, they'll acquire it and sell it back to you for ~$3300-3500 minimum. They can theoretically hold out for 150 years, and still turn a profit once the domain is sold.

I understand online commerce folks get emotional and butt hurt when their competition does something they deem unethical or even questionably legal, but at the end of the day there are those that take their branding seriously enough to secure the .com/.net/.org for their business identity. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, but my professional experience in various online commerce industries has taught me to have no sympathy for anyone doing good business that skimps out on domain purchasing. Did Saber decline to spend a couple/few grand on what is CLEARLY a better domain than the *inc?

Also, should the White House sue for antifa.com redirecting to whitehouse.gov?

Fun fact... Knowing how to do a domain ownership history search and knowing about the existence of domain brokerages doesn't make you an SEO expert. Another fun fact is since 1999 I've been buying and selling domain names, SEO work, and web / business development consultant ever since. I know a thing or two because i have seen a thing or two. 

One thing that has changed along that time I have been in this profession is that there are now Federal laws that have been put into place to protect businesses and consumers from tactics just like this. The law that stops companies from buying BankofAmericas.com (notice the intentional mispelling) as a phishing site to get your bank login information through nefarious activities is the same law that protects businesses from loosing traffic (thus customers) through tactics like what has been deployed here with K&L. 

So let's play this out.... If a consumer were to go www.NewFXAirguns.com (this domain is actually available by the way) and let's say it were to link to Daystate.com instead as a marketing move by Daystate. #1 The consumer is obviously looking for FX Airguns and the new models that have come out, not the Delta Wolf. Of course this is totally fictitious, but it is exactly what K&L has done (or at least did do before they turned it back into a parked domain). It really has nothing to do with SEO.

So, if you're asking what I would advise Saber Tactical to do? I would actually advise them avoid lawyers and just approach ICANN to apply an arbitration approach to #1 award Saber Tactical the domain name through UDRP and then #2 do nothing else to go after K&L legally. WHAT??!!!!! Don't try to sue them even though there may be legal standing to do so? Yup! 

I would just advise Saber Tactical to take the high road and allow K&L to have time to enjoy the shame they brought upon themselves within our community. I would then also wish K&L the best of luck and invite them to continue to do their work in innovating for the airgun industry. Taking the high road is often a great business strategy in this kind of situation especially when someone digs a hole so deep you don't need to burry them.