retired_member12

Some interesting points there sneezy, I'm in full agreement with much that you have highlighted.

It's matters such as these which lead me to seriously consider standing for the Board next time around.

doubletap.

GreyWing

FairPlay.... Don't quote me on the 99% mate, just a figure of speech. Which ultimately meant that in high profile cases, the decision goes with the money the majority of the time. Whether they are wrong or right to go with the money is another issue because I haven't studied all the cases either. But I'd say that you would probably expect around 80% - 85% to go with the money anyway, as that is the point in cybersquatting, you squat on people with money.

Just don't want you walking into court with that one,

__________________
Make cash from your website, any website, any sector... That.co.uk Find out more

fairplay

Sneezy thanks for this but does this still apply as the owner has already made a complaint against the expert and Nominet are really saying the liability is with the expert hence the received really non-commital response.

" ...I cannot intervene in this case. In reaching this position I am not agreeing or disagreeing with the merits of the actual decision."

I wont publish the rest of the reply as I have told admin I wouldn't but if I was reading it right the owner was being told that while the Nominet solicitor wouldnt step in, he wouldnt say whether he agreed or disagreed with the decision - but he did mention the owner had to prove that there had been any procedural irregularity.

So would the owner get this extra 10 days they talk about in this complaints link as he could really use the extra time to get his case sorted out. My thoughts on this and part of my appeal or court documents should be:

*****************************

Dear Mr XXXXXXXXX,

My question has got to be; After anyone reads this pdf document if this decision IS NOT a case where clear procedural irregularity exists, THEN WHAT IS?

* Nominet states that ANYONE who raises such a complaint or case against a domain owner must absolutely PROVE their case - THEY (FREMANTLE) HAVE NOT!.

* Fremantle have lied to discredit the owner and used this as a tool to lodge a "exceptional circumstances/evidence" clause so that the "Expert" would have to read more supposed NEW evidence. This was also proven by the actual Editor of The Times newspaper to be a LIE.

So why at this stage when this was so evident were they not found GUILTY of making a claim in "BAD FAITH" and the decision made in the owners favour??.

* Additionally the "Expert has found on the basis that an 'imaginary income' has been made, when she had as part of the owners submissions (had a signed statement explaining the banner marketing campaign was there as an example of how the new owners could structure such a campaign to earn additional revenue, and that it was not operational) if she would have tried to actually complete the process she relies on for her decision she would have found out it could not be done. This is incompetent if not verging on negligence on the experts part.

This finding if allowed to go no makes a complete mockery of Nominet and the way the public at large and independent Nominet members actually feel about an in-house procedure that cannot remain neutral.

Moreover; their have been several occasions when Fremantle have been given more time than is allowed and it would appear their has been an unfair biase throughout this entire process for a coporate business to the detriment of the original owner of the name.

Nominet SHOULD intervene to put a stop, total stop on this kind of decision
making when it is so evidently WRONG!!

*********************

Just my thoughts if anyone can provide any feedback, I would be really grateful. Plus anyone know how to kick off a court claim??.

fairplay

DoubleTap whether its on this one or any other - I sincerely hope that people who want to make changes at Nominet can be voted on the board.

This situation has been so upsetting while the owner has known for some time that the web was becoming too all-time-comsuming, after the op he is walking away from the internet and hopes to raise funds for an eco project.

If you're one of these people intent on making changes - I wish you well because its obvious something has got to be done!!

fairplay

No problem GreyWing but by my estimation your not far wrong on 99% its incredible.

Not quite sure what you mean by the cybersquatting part but no matter.

Thanks for your help and anything else you can think of I'll pass on. He does want to reinforce the case here and build on everything that hasnt been proven, while pointing out in no uncertain terms all the things that are wrong with this decision asap. To ensure this decision is definitely overturned.

fairplay

PLEASE, please support this string, the owner has made a complaint in line with the Nominet procedure that Sneezy put forward but he has been told he can have "1 extra day"

** Desperate NOW for court procedure rules from those who have been down this route and fast (and in fact) any help with putting together what constitutes a good appeal document!!!!!!!!

fairplay

Hello all well not any help from Nominet on the BritainsGotsTalent.co.uk front but I want to take them on and I would ask for anyones help. On the basis that a good case will will make a difference "FOR EVERYONE" who makes a stand against coporate bullies and people who have too much money and believe they can take what is yours!!

Anyone care to help us???

fairplay

My solicitors are telling me that after a simple review of Nominet results from appeals (after the so-called expert finds) it is a lost cause to spend your hard-earned in an attempt to get justice. That these percentages put anyone hoping to challenge a decision on the laws of 'probability' will have no more than a 1% chance of winning the Lottery.

Having taken advice from our solicitors on the basis that an inordinate amount of cases which would otherwise 'in UK a court of law' have gone in favour of the rightful owner, It is our intention that Nominet cannot continue to act in their present capacity where protocol expects a totally unbiased body to give an opinion. Furthmore where cases are unable to agree via initial, internal, Nominet DRS services, there should not be a situation where a single person should decide the outcome, moreover, we will contest that the current situation where a decision goes against you is unfair and to expect people to pay £3,500 to contest such a decision is unfair. It will be part of our case that the Claimant from the outset should pay £3,500 to have a board of (experts) to judge the case and not £750 for a solitary judge as their can be no doubt corporate businesses se this as an extremely cheap way to potentially have names transferred without paying a reasonable market price.

Mediation solutions found by experts who are without question under contract of Nominet (by way of the fact they are paid by Nominet) should not be used if there is to be any credibility in the management of .co.uk domains.

The collective opinion is quite clear and that is that Nominet cannot continue to operate an internal review where they also have the authority outside a UK recognised court of law. Whereby they in effect have the ability to transfer a domain even when they have no right arguably in law to have that name transferred.

Please "ANYONE" provide any input would help _ We're going to need all the help we can get to take on a TV company who turned €110m last year!!

Got 15 days to build the whole case, so if anyone can see anything blatantly obvious in the pdf http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/3068....co.uk___1.pdf or other materials they have read - please contact me!!

fairplay

Please post or contact me and play a part in hopefully making changes for the better...

fairplay

Our case is clear; he owner picked the name britains got talent for an unsigned British internet talent agency and someone decided one year later to make a tv show. Our submissions are reinforced by the date of registration, the fact that Fremantle knew the name was registered, that they knew the site was in development, that they led him to believe a fair market price would be reached for the name, should he decide to sell it to them. The submissions also ask whether Fremantle had contractual obligations after making an offer to buy the name, the Fremantle representative assured the owner a deal would be done and asked (for more time) to come up with a more acceptable offer but were actually covertly putting forward an abusive registration case to Nominet.

The (expert) has found:

He must also have been aware that the domain name and website content meant that his website would be perceived as having a connection with the TV programme. Particularly significant is the decision to stream footage from the BRITAIN’S GOT TALENT programme which, when used in connection with the britainsgottalent domain name, could not avoid the impression of a connection with the TV programme.

( ...How can this be when our orginal idea to have a british online talent agency predates the show by over a year, furthermore there was no decision by the owner to stream footage from ANY show, the members upload video clips of many talent sources that they want to critique or debate. Although clips are deleted to keep a balance!)

Although the Respondent owned the britainsgottalent.co.uk domain name before the UK programme was broadcast this prior ownership did not give him carte blanche to start a new use of the domain name in connection with a website in circumstances where the new use took unfair advantage and exploited the Complainant’s rights in the TV show brand.

In more technical terms the launch of the Respondent’s website amounts to a new use of a domain name which was calculated to take advantage of the Complainant’s success. It is an unfair advantage because the owners of the brand rights derive no benefit from this exploitation of their brand.

( ...There was no "new use" the name was purchased to launch a BRITISH ONLINE TALENT SITE!! )

This finding is reinforced by the advertising revenue that the Respondent is deriving from its website. - This is clearly an operation that is designed to exploit and take advantage of the strong brand recognition that is generated by the BRITAIN’S GOT TALENT TV show. It demonstrates quite clearly that the use by the Respondent of its website is at least in part calculated to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s Rights.
For these reasons the Expert finds that the use of the britainsgottalent.co.uk domain name by the Respondent amounts to an Abusive Registration.

( ...There was "NO ADVERTISING CAMPAIGN" the dummy banners were there to show the new owners how an additional revenue stream could be added. Plus the (expert) had been advised of this in the owners submissions!!)

This is the entire basis for finding against the owner, can anyone advise???

Thanks