Quote:
|
Originally Posted by melitaweb I think the scariest bit of this is the complainant's belief they had a case due to this skewed logic:
'whilst it is accepted that the domain name was registered prior to the date upon which the complainant began use of the ghd brand, the respondent primarily registered the domain name for the purposes of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to an entity to whom the domain name would be of relevance for a price in excess of its out of pocket costs....' |
Careful there. That was what the Complainant was claiming and they
would make their claim since they are obviously interested in acquiring the domain name. Many Complainants cut+paste the DRS policy around their own comments in their complaint. This appears to be what the Complainant did here.[/quote]
Quote:
|
In other words. Domain speculation should not be allowed and, provided we trademark a company, we should be able to take any relevant domain for registration fee even if we didn't have the foresight to get in earlier. By the same token I think people should sell me land they are not using purely because I have a better use for it - also they should sell me it at the *same* price they paid for it no matter how many years later it is.
|
On page 10 of the decision, the expert states
Quote:
| "Since the Complainant had not established Rights at the date of registration, the Respondent’s offer to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant cannot be abusive; the Respondent is offering something that it owns and the price is a reflection of the value to the Complainant and the Respondent." |
I think this speaks for itself. Selling a domain name to someone who obviously has an interest in it is not considered abusive on its own when Respondent registered the domain name prior to Complainant gaining any rights on a similar term.
The Complainant managed to sway the expert because it provided evidence that the Respondent had hawked the domain name around "...a number of stockists of the Complainant's products in order to try and elicit the best price..." and ..."for a sum well in excess of its out of pocket costs..." The Respondent didn't provide much in the way of evidence to back up its case of the "Getta Home Deal" development..
Quote:
|
DRS 'experts' are nothing of the sort. This goes to show that you should *never* offer your domain to anyone - you don't know who they deal with. Scrap the DRS and let people go to court. At least judgements would be consistent.
|
I don't think it is impossible to offer your domain name to prospective buyers. If you are unsure, seek professional advice an, perhaps, ask the person you are contacting to sign an NDA.
FWIW I don't agree with the entire decision but I can see where the Respondent made mistakes and also where the Complainant capitalised on them. The decision didn't have to go the way it did and I put the burden of error on the Respondents side, at least from reading the decision. Of course, there might be things we are not aware of.