domaingenius

Why do Nominet not make it a rule that before making a complaint under DRS they must write to the domain registrant ,explain the complaint and ask them to stop any alleged infringment. Then if the registrant fails to stop the alleged infringment then a complaint may only then be lodged.

DG

grandin

DG I have already suggested this to hazel prior to the drs review

Lee

__________________
Buy To Let Mortgages Buy To Let mortgages Discount Mortgages landlord insurance
student loan Commercial Mortgages Fixed Mortgages UK Hotels UK Holidays

domaingenius

Good, but lets hope Nominet actually listen to a sensible proposal. Rather than have the "mediation" stage of DRS it should be done before the complaint is issued. If a complainant contacts Nominet with a complaint Nominet should advise them to send a pre agreed letter to the registrant, even via Nominet perhaps, and then give the registrant 14 days to reply etc etc Those communications should be excluded from any following DRS much the same as in mediation.

DG

retired_member6

It's not strictly on the domain unless the nameservers are changed but even then content is supplied by a third party, if it's a forwarded domain one can't possibly be responsible for what is on sedo's website, can one and on that point I would have argued, however, the defendent is alledged to have put a description on manually either as meta or otherwise which he used to directly or indirectly benefit from the typo.

We may all be doing that now or similar but we shouldn't be, without that wording, he probably wouldn't have lost the domain as the other party wouldn't have cared. Four letters can go right to the wire as well.

Hazel Pegg

It's been noted by me. This particular thread is rather interesting. Less of the mindless rants and more of the constructive suggestions for change than usual.

Hazel

invincible

Several reasons why they won't do this.

1. Respondent is put on notice and can simply remove DNS or transfer the domain name to another party, removing any previous pattern of abuse. Complainant's motives for making a complaint are more than likely to obtain the domain name rather than to simply prevent the infringement.

2. Complainant may claim that they wrote to Respondent when in fact they did not.

3. Respondent may claim that they did not receive the correspondance from the Complainant, in order to invalidate any subsequent DRS.

grandin

The mere sending of an item does not guarantee delivery. It would be the responsibility of the complainant to deliver its notice of abuse....no different to a court summons. It is also the registrants duty to keep his details up-to date.

Any scam will be picked up in time with severe penalties for any registrant who knowingly tries to get round the rules in a deceitful manner.

You have picked up on the biggest issue regarding the domain name....

The true motive of the complainant could be to get hold of the domain name NOT to stop the abuse

Other related points:-

Nominet should be involved in proactively TRYING to offer lawful products.

They could get involved in making prelimnary judgements that are not binding to the registrant but should be persuasive.

Pre vetting of new registration that fit certain criteria (cross checking the Patent Office database)

Lee

__________________
Buy To Let Mortgages Buy To Let mortgages Discount Mortgages landlord insurance
student loan Commercial Mortgages Fixed Mortgages UK Hotels UK Holidays

domaingenius

Yes agree those are all problems. To be honest I would be happy is DRS simply stuck rigidily to 2 things, TM law and Passing off law and that way we would know where we all stood. As it is the goal posts are either invisible or permanently moving and "experts" make up their own rules as they go along !

DG

Sean

Do you read your PM's?