domains

This domain Britain's Got Talent - Unofficial Site - BritainsGotTalent.org.uk is for sale on sedo

BG

BritainsGotTalent...........Me :P Ho, ho, ho

Its FREE to register, wow wee! quick quick my little monkeys go register this million dollar domain and escape the rat-race they call domaining...

Even with the Credit crunch, Credit squeeze, Got no credit on my mobile, black monday, orange wednesday, green thursday i think we're looking at a cool £million easy, grab it while you can

BG

__________________
Randoms: Breaks | Rewind | Memology | Entrepreneurs | Commerce |
Free Press Releases | UK Payday Loans | Payday Loan Lenders | UK Cloud | Regme.com

rob

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/3068....co.uk___1.pdf

domainseller200

Hmmmmm fair decision in your opinion ?

bb99

In light of that, I would love to know the identity of the Sedo £100k bidder!

__________________
Droppr - finely tuned .uk dropcatching for Nominet members
Gazebos | Flyers, Postcards | Tree Surveys | Dent Repairs Leeds | Poster Printing

mat

Good read!

fairplay

This decision is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.

To Rob, Domainseller200, bbs and Mat and any other domainer on this site, some insight into what really went on,

This decision is wrong on so many levels and the owner has lodged a complaint against the Expert with Nominet’s Legal director as is his not advertised and little known right.

1) Fremantle had already offered to buy the name.
2) The name precedes the show by over a year.
3) The site is an online talent finder and markets unsigned talent based on an original idea.
4) The site clearly publishes a DISCLAIMER on the footer of every page on the site stating it "HAS NO CONNECTION" with the tv show.
5) The site has over 3,400 members.
6) The site gets more traffic than the tv shows official website.

FACT: Fremantle offered to buy the BritainsGotTalent.co.uk but their derisory initial offer was refused.

FACT: The solicitor acting for Fremantle personally promised that a satisfactory figure and agreement would be structured.

** When the owner had not heard anything for a few weeks and they asked Fremantle if they could help they were told (not to worry) Fremantle were still having discussions with various people in the group and they needed more time.

LIE: They were secretly building a case for abusive registration to put to Nominet.

Fremantle were offered the option to resolve everything during mediation and the owner kept all lines of communication open to try to resolve things, they chose not to. Fremantle could not prove a case and then lodged an “exceptional circumstances” appeal so the the expert would ‘have to’ read more supposed proof.

Thie “exceptional circumstances” were that they ACCUSED the owner of placing an ad in the Times newspaper online stating that this tv show could be entered via BritainsGotTalent.co.uk. The owner infuriated by this asked the Editor of the Times to investigate this which they did. This Times categorically stated that the owner HAD NOT PLACE THE AD, however given data protection they could not identify who did!!

This ad was placed as a cynical attempt by someone to discredit the owner, by someone with a vested interest. Given that this page could only be found by entering an obscure string that only returned 7 replies instead of around 2 million for the term britains got talent it could only have been found, if you actually knew it was there beforehand.

LIE: Nevertheless this was proven to be yet another lie.

FACT: The Solicitor acting for Fremantle NO LONGER works for the company.

** When asked why? – Fremantle stated the person in charge of and who built this important case for the company no longer worked for Fremantle because he was a temp!!. I will leave you to believe what you chose on this however given that Fremantles entire trademark rests on this as far as I am concerned this is nonsense.

While the Expert seems to find for the owner throughout this document the decision in the main is made because the of revenue made through an advertising campaign.

** In spite of the fact that the expert had a signed statement from the owner "as part of his submissions" stating that “ NO MONEY” had been made via the site. The owner clearly explained that to do this would require to enter into legal agreements with advertisers for a period of 12 months and this clearly could not be done as the site to all intents and purpose was going to be SOLD. The ads that do appear on the site are to show the purchaser how a similar advertising campaign could be structured. NO ADS CAN BE BOUGHT THROUGH THIS SITE.

This is damning for the Expert and for Nominet for had the Expert tried she would have found this! – and had she gone further she would have been presented by a Paypal page showing a cost of £000.00. At this stage her decision falls apart

This is a travesty for Nominet, the expert is clearly wrong. The owner has the backing of many who point out Nominet’s historical decisions where large companies are involved and in 99% of cases the big company whether they have rights or not wins, this flies in the face of what Nominet is supposed to stand for.

The owner is waiting to hear an ‘informed opinion’ and is hopeful that the British sense of fair play will prevail and this decision will be overturned as it so obviously warranted.

This is an opportunity for all domainers to have their say and I would welcome any debate on this and the owner who is of good standing on this site would also.

rob

Have you lodged an appeal, if not , why not?

fairplay

Rob no not at this time. The short answer is £3k plus vat, however we wanted to take this to the highest level at Nominet first. More importantly we wanted to make everyone aware this is an option that people who might not have that sort of money have, and it is an option that is available to anyone involved in anything like this although not generally advertised.

We want to bring what had happened in this case and in many peoples opinion what has happened in many cases where big business is involved to director level at Nominet. This expert has made a decision which is patently wrong and Fremantle have proved nothing. They have been found out for orchestrating a scurrilous campaign and yet there seems to be no justice. Nominet now have to come back with an informed opinion.

fairplay

Please, Please everyone who is viewing this string - have your say instead of just looking and moving on.

I welcome whatever any member of this site has to say on this, I will take it on good or bad but I'm of the belief that the majority will be positive and show support.

We need all the help we can get on this and it is in my opinion a great opportunity to "have your say" to Nominet on what people actively involved in the industry actually think.

Thanks...