Beasty

It seems there is a dispute going on between a coven of wizards and witches on the one hand and a property developer on the other. The domains in dispute are highcrossquarter.com and co.uk - it seems both DRS and UDRP are already underway.

The wiccans have the domains and say it is a religiously significant name to them - the property developers have chosen it for a £350 million development.

retired_member6

I hope the covenant win, it would keep them in rats and eye of toad for years to come.

tifosi

Just turn the the developers into toads and there ya go! Problem solved. ribbit!

S

Beasty

Round one to the coven!

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2007-0866.html

Beasty

Round two to the developers.

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAss...ossquarter.pdf

Quite a different take on the same facts in a UDRP and a DRS.

retired_member9

It seems DRS expert has put more and proper attention to the facts why this registration and respondent statement is a sham.

grandin

The expert clearly nailed the wizards into a coffin

Beasty

How then does one explain the emails detailed in the UDRP decision showing that the name was under consideration some months before the shopping center chose it? These do not seem to have had an impact on the DRS expert - but are consistent with a valid non-abusive registration. In my view the expert's "abusive coincidence" could well simply be a logical reaction on hearing that someone else may well want a domain that you thought your ISP had registered. This evidence gets no analysis in the DRS decision but is decisive in the UDRP. Without the UDRP we would not even know any of that detail.

grandin

Beasty be serious....you can't expect to get a job as an expert if you totally disregard the expert saying this 'It is clear from the exchange of emails in which the Respondent requested
figure sum for the domain name that the Respondent registered the domain
the date that the Complainant’s new name was announced, primarily for
of selling the domain name to the Complainant for valuable consideration
the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly associated with
the domain name in dispute. The Complainant has also submitted evidence that the Respondent is engaged
pattern of registration in which the Respondent is the registrant of Internet
names which correspond to well-known names in which the Respondent
apparent rights, and that the domain name in dispute is part of that pattern. In the circumstances, given the fact that he has engaged in a pattern of such registrations and given the fact that he registered the domain name in dispute
date on which the Complainant announced the new name for its shopping
project, on the balance of probabilities, the Respondent’s claim that he had
preparations to use the domain name incorporating the words “high cross
prior to the establishment of the Complainant’s rights is not credible.'

can you???????????????????????

I am only interested in the few caes that fall down WHEN experts are experts AND should be fully liable for mistakes.........transfer to someone who does not have unequivocal rights is morally wrong

Lee

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

monaghan

Not to get too specific on this case, but surely if the developer knew what he was calling the development and he wanted Internet visibility, he should have registered the domain at this point and not waited until after the press release?

__________________
Alex Monaghan - Drop Catch & Drop Lists - PM for details
Online Accounting|Pine Furniture|Barbie