domaingenius

OK that would be good. In that case, according to the ghd decision then,
9.3 onwards and particularly 9.3.16 (and as would be pleaded in the High Court if the matter was a legal case) any breach of trademark claim for a domain name should go through the Courts and NOT through DRS. That is what it says.
OK so in future that that means that registration of a trademark name and attempts to sell such domains to "a" trademark holder is NOT abusive. I think that this decision will cause problems for Nominet if they ever decide a future case in a way apposite to the ghd case. Lets see what actally happens.

DG

ratboy

As a local company to me, I know that GHD grew out of a very small warehouse in a posh residential area. I have several friends who have worked their throughout their super-quick rise up the growth curve.

This DRS is the lawyers doing, which probably came out from the marketing company which ghd have to thank for their success.

It'll match the bosses wifes private plate on her Range Rover anyhow.

__________________
I run Top Search Ltd

EdPhillips

No, not quite. It says that, for certain very technical trade mark infringements, the DRS is inappropriate. It does not say that "any" trade mark case should be for the courts not the DRS.

Remember, Nominet doesn't decide any of the cases, and appeals are not binding (see 10(c), as discussed).

Also, I suspect that your interpreation of the case is a bit general - the panel is specifically picking on the situation where there was no abuse at registration, and later there is only an offer to sell to the rights holder or the rights holder's authorised distributors - which is a rather specific lacuna. They do not suggest that sale to competitors would be acceptable.

domaingenius

Clause 9.3.16 reads, quote "If what the respondent has done amounts to trademark infringment (and the panel is by no means certain that it does-the UK case law on the subject is largely if not exclusively in relation to domain names which have been registered with abusive intent) the court is the proper forum for determining the issue , not an administrative proceeding under the Nominet DRS"

OK my reading of that ,if I was referring to this as case law to a Court would be that the precedent had been established by the C of A (in this case the appeal panel of the DRS) that the Nominet DRS is not the correct forum for any claim involving trademark infringment. Therefore in a Court of law it would be very hard for a complainant to use "trademark infringment" contentions in any part of the claim (DRS) no matter what they were trying to prove.

Please advise which clause says that as I cannot see those words that you quote ?.


Who employees and pays the "independent" arbitrators ?.

DG