Quote:
|
Originally Posted by vjroberts Of all the candidates seeking election to the Nominet Policy Advisory Board, only 2 candidates mention DRS in their Nominet PAB Election statements and what they would strive to change. The others make no mention of any desire to change DRS in their statements.
The two are : [SIZE="3"]Richard Martin [/SIZE]
• Campaigning for changes to the current DRS procedure to protect generic domain names, and those registered before a similar trademark
• Campaigning for DRS cases with poor complaints (for example not showing rights, or failing to provide documentation) to be rejected [SIZE="3"]James Conaghan[/SIZE]
• DRS Financial implications (eg: £3,000 appeal fee). |
What we need to see is a DRS that follows more closely the law regarding trademarks and passing off. One has to think "what is the purpose of the DRS" and I can only see that the answer would be something along lines "because it gives a cheap and easy route" for complainants to get the domain names. It is not actually cheap for those on the receiving end, and most of the complainants use DRS rather than the law/court system because they know that DRS is so far away from case law that they could not get the domain through the Courts because it would not constitute an infringment.
The DRS either needs to be revamped or done away with totally. WHY do Nominet feel they have to run a DRS, why do they not simply tell complainants to go to Court ???. Indeed that fact that the DRS is so far
away from Case Law *may* constitute some kind of unfairness to respondents ?. If for example a domain holder was using a name in breach of TM laws and/or passing off then the complainant could easily take that person to Court. Why should DRS make the hurdle so much lower to allow complainants to more easily grab domains from respondents ?. It maybe that the DRS is an unfair contract term or similar in that it deliberately goes against settled TM law.
DG