The other day I described how the otherwise likable Bido upset me, by allowing the owner of a domain to list it on GoDaddy’s TDNAM as well.
By doing so, both Bido and the seller essentially lost a good chunk of money; I did not bid even close to my allocated budget for the domain name, which ended up being won by someone else.
Even though I did not open a ticket, Bido sent me a response, that reads in part:
“We don’t have the resources to monitor listings of all domains auctioned on Bido on other places, and we can only react, and contact sellers once we are informed about a duplicate auction. Immidiately once we’ve noticed that domain’s page was referring to an “Auction” on another place, we have requested the seller to remove that other listing. The seller has done so.”
While it’s true about the monitoring part, it’s essential to note that there is no checkbox, implicit or explicit, during the agreement that asks for the seller to ensure the non-duplication of auctions or selling venues, other than Bido.
As for the seller removing the other listing, it is still on TDNAM; meanwhile, the domain itself has been handed over to the new owner.
Moving on, Bido needs to “extract” from the sellers the confirmation that domains are not listed anywhere else with a BIN or a in an auction, as it can complicate the process at Bido and can lead to lost revenue for the seller and the Bido platform.
It seems that Bido *does* require exclusivity, but how is that enforced in this case?
“EXCLUSIVITY: During the Exclusive Sale Period, Seller agrees not to use, appoint, or engage any person or entity other than Bido to act as its agent, sales representative, or in a similar capacity with respect to the Item(s) during the term of this Agreement. In the event that Seller sells or markets the Item(s) directly to a buyer or through any person or entity other than Bido during the term of this Agreement, Bido shall be entitled to receive it’s Fee (as hereinafter defined).”