Changes

Brandon Gray Internet Services received numerous complaints from customers as well as other domain registry operators  because of its [[Domain Slamming|domain slamming]] practices.<ref>[http://www.onlineverif.com/?go=pages/posts/posts&id=21064 Slamming Practices]</ref> A process wherein it collects important details about domain owners from the [[Whois]] data base and sends them e-mails, expiration letters or renewal notices, misleading domain owners and telling them to immediately renew their domain names through them. Unknowingly the owners are transferring their domain names to a different operator.  

Brandon Gray Internet Services received numerous complaints from customers as well as other domain registry operators  because of its [[Domain Slamming|domain slamming]] practices.<ref>[http://www.onlineverif.com/?go=pages/posts/posts&id=21064 Slamming Practices]</ref> A process wherein it collects important details about domain owners from the [[Whois]] data base and sends them e-mails, expiration letters or renewal notices, misleading domain owners and telling them to immediately renew their domain names through them. Unknowingly the owners are transferring their domain names to a different operator.  

In 2003, the United States [[FTC|Federal Trade Commission]] requested a federal district court to issue an injunction against Domain Registry of America (eNom, Inc.), one of the resellers under Brandon Gray Internet Services from making misrepresentations in selling its domain registry services. The FTC also asked the court to pay its 50,000 customers with redress and prohibit the company to engage in domain slamming practices and to put the company's activities under FTC's strict monitoring.<ref>[http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/12/domainreg.shtm FTC.gov]</ref>

In 2003, the United States [[FTC|Federal Trade Commission]] requested a federal district court to issue an injunction against Domain Registry of America (eNom, Inc.), one of the resellers under Brandon Gray Internet Services, for making misrepresentations when selling its domain registry services. The FTC also asked the court to pay its 50,000 customers with redress and prohibit the company to engage in domain slamming practices and to put the company's activities under FTC's strict monitoring.<ref>[http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2003/12/domainreg.shtm FTC.gov]</ref>

The '''UK Advertising Watchdog Authority''' also complained against the same domain slamming practices committed by [[Domain Registry of Europe]]. The organization threatened to file legal actions against DRoE if it continues to send bill-like renewal notices to domain owners in 2003. The company's argues,"notices were not a bill, rather an easy means of payment should you decide to register or renew your domain(s) with us".<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/08/06/legal_action_threatened_against_domain/ The Register.co.uk]</ref>

The '''UK Advertising Watchdog Authority''' also complained against the same domain slamming practices committed by [[Domain Registry of Europe]]. The organization threatened to file legal actions against DRoE if it continues to send bill-like renewal notices to domain owners in 2003. The company's argues,"notices were not a bill, rather an easy means of payment should you decide to register or renew your domain(s) with us".<ref>[http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/08/06/legal_action_threatened_against_domain/ The Register.co.uk]</ref>