AcornDomains.co.uk

http://www.nic.uk/DisputeResolution/...02166Game.html

Interesting DRS case, shows that even with a totally generic domain like game.co.uk, it can be taken from you.

__________________
Domain Name Registration from 7p a year!| Sold Domain Prices | UK Shopping

domaingenius

Interesting and scary. It just reminds me of the power of money
and the money that comes from power !

DG

AcornDomains.co.uk

the guy lost his business and £100,000!

SecNam

it is pending so i recon it will goto court and he will win (hopefully), just bad for uk catchers if he looses as i recon it will open the flood gates..

AcornDomains.co.uk

Well the clincher seems to be the expert sees that people are confused when ordering from the current site thinking they are ordering from GAME.

I wonder if he had put a clear notification on his homepage if he could have avoided giving the complainant ammunition for the case and may have held onto it.

The DRS system hinges on whether or not a registration is "abusive".
IMO the expert seems to think it is abusive due this point, that people think they are ordering from the complainant.

__________________
Domain Name Registration from 7p a year!| Sold Domain Prices | UK Shopping

domaingenius

One piece of case law to remember is from One in a Million
which states that "there is no tort of going equipped to pass off".
In other words possessing a domain with someones trade mark
is not in itself a tort, it is what you do with it that can make it
unlawful. I was contacted recentlt by a large US Corporation
seeking to sue me. I did a trademark search and then asked them
which specific trademark they relied on .Despite several requests
they have gone quiet for weeks, probably coz I outflanked them
as they have no TM relevant to this situation, although they have
tens of TM's.

DG

danny

In my opinion or how I understand it, is that the registration can only be classed as an "abusive registration" if the name was registered in bad faith when the registrant originally purchased/registered the domain.

As this was back in 1995 it clearly was not an abusive registration as he had no intention or insight as to what or who might use this purely generic name to perform business under. I think that it is lazy practice on the complainant’s behalf to use such a generic name to trade under without due care and that they therefore can surely only expect to have limited rights over such use.

As our business revolves entirely around generic domain registrations for purpose of development at some point in time I think that it would be benificial for us to all have our say in this unfair decision. Anyone want to call Nominet to step forward.

The respondent is surely at some fault for lack of information on their site to clearly state that they are not indeed the company in question, but in my honest opinion I think that there is injustice the experts final decision. Who thinks that the name should just be handed over to the giant for free and not returned to its rightful place “THE DROP”? [violins play]

Guess we’ll just have to see how the court proceeding pan out, but I sincerely hope that the outcome is of much fairer nature.

Happy Hunting

domaingenius

The only "Game" trademark actually registered is NOT
The Game Group Plc but is for a South African drinks group
in UK.http://webdb4.patent.gov.uk/tm/text?...atusselected=A

danny

Yes well spotted DG, they do not own a TM over the name and probably never will due to its GENERIC nature and hopefully never will or they will hold a huge monopoly over the market and there would be no room for any other businesses.

However you may also note that they have (3) applications, (1) x New and (2) x Examined. Who knows, they might get the name registered yet...........But I reiterate they have NOT got the TM at the moment "Nominet". Exclusivity to this company alone should not be allowed.

Regards

domaingenius

Exactly ,and IF,and I say IF because I dont think that they should do anything, Nominet were to do anything they should have released the name
not transferred it, though even that would be grossly unfair. What must alos be remembered though is that one does not have to have a Trademark per
se to have rights in a name !!.That is a key point here. If a party can
prove that they have used a name consistently for a particular trade then
they can still have a Service mark for that name for that trade,but
that still allows others to use the same name for other trades.

If you look at the facts it becomes clearer that the decision is unfair;
1. The only trademark is for a drinks company (which by implication
means that the Patent office accepts that Game can also mean other
things besides what Game can also mean)
2. The Game Group Plc is called that, and not just "game".
3. The Game Group is applying for a trademark that is identifed
NOT by the word "game" alone but by style and colour of
lettering
4. I dont think that the owner of Game was passing off as "The Game
Group Plc" ,unless he was using same style and colour of lettering ?.

Thats my thoughts. I do hope that he takes this to Court, although dont
alway expect a logical conclusion from them either, its taken me
7 years on 1 case (not about domains) !!

DG