ireland.co.uk, bella.co.uk & roadrunner.co.uk

Whois-Search · 04-08-2007, 10:24:11 PM

Three new DRS cases now online worth reading:

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/21494_ireland.pdf

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/21498_roadrunner.pdf

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/21496_bella.pdf

GWing · 05-08-2007, 01:06:44 AM

The one regarding RoadRunner.co.uk is an absolute joke of a decision,

nominet are absolutley scandalous.

Where does this expert get off writing something like

"If one swallow does not make a Summer, do12 domain names (out of 231) constitute a
pattern?"

I hope that Ostashko certainly appeals that one.

retired_member16 · 05-08-2007, 01:16:55 AM

I think that its only a matter of time before Nominet decide that non-use of a domain name is proof of an abusive registration.

Perhaps this is a good thing?

casinogb · 05-08-2007, 10:11:09 AM

the ireland.co.uk case was interesting, given that a price was agreed and money was sent as well.

what would the seller have felt if the buyer managed to withdraw their funding.

i'm on the side of the buyer for this one, if you agree on a deal, then it should be honoured especially as the money was sent.

seems like a breach of contract and I wonder if the case will go to court for breach of contract.

nnh · 05-08-2007, 10:34:59 AM

I'm on the side of the seller/nominet on that one. The buyer was a chancer and it nearly paid off!! They had no reasonable claim to it, if it had been the Irish Tourist board then that may have been different.

Nearly getting something is not the same as getting it! If the 'tags' had been changed and it was simply the Nominet paperwork then maybe...FAIR...

olebean · 05-08-2007, 10:52:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nnh

I'm on the side of the seller/nominet on that one. The buyer was a chancer and it nearly paid off!! They had no reasonable claim to it, if it had been the Irish Tourist board then that may have been different.

Nearly getting something is not the same as getting it! If the 'tags' had been changed and it was simply the Nominet paperwork then maybe...FAIR...

Reverse Domain Hijacking?

rob · 05-08-2007, 11:10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nnh

I'm on the side of the seller/nominet on that one. The buyer was a chancer and it nearly paid off!! They had no reasonable claim to it, if it had been the Irish Tourist board then that may have been different.

Nearly getting something is not the same as getting it! If the 'tags' had been changed and it was simply the Nominet paperwork then maybe...FAIR...

It could be the prelude to a court case.

Likewise if buyer rings Nominet and mentions there is a dispute over the domain they would point them towards the DRS regardless.

It does show though that the DRS is not there to solve disputes of that nature.

Quote:

i'm on the side of the buyer for this one, if you agree on a deal, then it should be honoured especially as the money was sent.

seems like a breach of contract and I wonder if the case will go to court for breach of contract.

I agree.

Edwin · 05-08-2007, 11:15:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by casinogb

the ireland.co.uk case was interesting, given that a price was agreed and money was sent as well.

what would the seller have felt if the buyer managed to withdraw their funding.

i'm on the side of the buyer for this one, if you agree on a deal, then it should be honoured especially as the money was sent.

seems like a breach of contract and I wonder if the case will go to court for breach of contract.

I agree entirely. Once the deal is set in motion, with both parties in agreement and an Escrow transaction set up, that should be enough to confirm legally that there definitely IS a deal that has been made, at a price accepted by both parties, and therefore the seller should be compelled to carry it through to conclusion.

GWing · 05-08-2007, 12:09:56 PM

don't forget that under English law, you have 7 days cooling off period for any contract.

tifosi · 05-08-2007, 01:20:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GWing

The one regarding RoadRunner.co.uk is an absolute joke of a decision,

nominet are absolutley scandalous.

Where does this expert get off writing something like

"If one swallow does not make a Summer, do12 domain names (out of 231) constitute a
pattern?"

I hope that Ostashko certainly appeals that one.

Especially where I believe the expert was using the incorrect interpretation of 'abusive pattern of registration'.

Isn't this, or shouldn't this be, restricted to the repeated patterns of registrations that have resulted in the loss of domains as shown by the 3case pattern.

The whole drs has bad ramifications for PPC and especially search boxes in parking, and in theory ANY, page containing adverts generated through search.

S

04-08-2007, 10:24:11 PM	#1 (permalink)
Whois-Search Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Swad.com Posts: 1,480 No Classified Ratings Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 2)	ireland.co.uk, bella.co.uk & roadrunner.co.uk Three new DRS cases now online worth reading: http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/21494_ireland.pdf http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/21498_roadrunner.pdf http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/21496_bella.pdf __________________ Andrew Bennett - www.whois-search.com Linkedin: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/andrewgbennett

05-08-2007, 01:06:44 AM	#2 (permalink)
GWing Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 287 No Classified Ratings Domain Trader Rating: (0% / 0)	The one regarding RoadRunner.co.uk is an absolute joke of a decision, nominet are absolutley scandalous. Where does this expert get off writing something like "If one swallow does not make a Summer, do12 domain names (out of 231) constitute a pattern?" I hope that Ostashko certainly appeals that one. __________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

05-08-2007, 10:34:59 AM	#5 (permalink)
nnh Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Scottish Highlands - New York, Paris, Peckham! Posts: 652 No Classified Ratings Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 15)	ireland.co.uk I'm on the side of the seller/nominet on that one. The buyer was a chancer and it nearly paid off!! They had no reasonable claim to it, if it had been the Irish Tourist board then that may have been different. Nearly getting something is not the same as getting it! If the 'tags' had been changed and it was simply the Nominet paperwork then maybe...FAIR...

05-08-2007, 12:09:56 PM	#9 (permalink)
GWing Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 287 No Classified Ratings Domain Trader Rating: (0% / 0)	don't forget that under English law, you have 7 days cooling off period for any contract. __________________ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

05-08-2007, 01:16:55 AM	#3 (permalink)
retired_member16 Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 3,696 No Classified Ratings Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 39)	I think that its only a matter of time before Nominet decide that non-use of a domain name is proof of an abusive registration. Perhaps this is a good thing?

05-08-2007, 10:11:09 AM	#4 (permalink)
casinogb Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 41 No Classified Ratings Domain Trader Rating: (0% / 0)	the ireland.co.uk case was interesting, given that a price was agreed and money was sent as well. what would the seller have felt if the buyer managed to withdraw their funding. i'm on the side of the buyer for this one, if you agree on a deal, then it should be honoured especially as the money was sent. seems like a breach of contract and I wonder if the case will go to court for breach of contract.