Search for your domain name

Mendis · 22-03-2006, 12:18 AM

probably a stupid question but i'm trying to get my head around some stuff ...
in this quote from a N.A.F hearing

“Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that, to justify transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove that …:
(3) the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.”

Does the ‘and’ rather than ‘or’ in this last sentence suggest that a domain can be registered in bad faith as long as it is not used in bad faith and vice versa?”

Mendis

jinxie98 · 22-03-2006, 10:11 AM

The NAF ruling you refer to relates to UDRP a policy established in 1999 for global domain names (com net org etc)

Nominet chose to ignore the wording of UDRP and instead decided to write their own policy in 2001 called DRS .

UDRP requires that the domain name to have been registered in bad faith AND used in bad faith.
Nominet DRS requires that the domain name to have been registered in bad faith OR used in bad faith.

This is a fundamental difference which allows decisions to take away co.uk domain names registered a long time ago, in some cases even before the complainant existed or registered a trademark or simply established "rights" (with DRS the complainant doesnt even have to have a registered trademark).

Beasty · 22-03-2006, 11:26 AM

Spot on Jinxie - a big difference that has proved very handy for a number of claimants.

But the DRS does not require "bad faith" - that was explicitly removed in the consultation period - as it is seen as harder to show than "abusive registration".

Mendis · 22-03-2006, 07:38 PM

Excellent explanation, thanks, I did think that 'and' was a bit ambiguous, Nominet obviously agreed. I'll have to make sure to read up on some more up to date and relevant examples.

texidriver · 22-03-2006, 09:59 PM

jinxie98
Junior Member

Welcome, you have a wise head on young shoulders.

but who trashed your reputation !

22-03-2006, 12:18 AM	#1
Mendis Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 49 Domain Trader Rating: (0% / 0)	quick question on bad faith probably a stupid question but i'm trying to get my head around some stuff ... in this quote from a N.A.F hearing “Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that, to justify transfer of a domain name, a complainant must prove that …: (3) the domain name has been registered and used in bad faith.” Does the ‘and’ rather than ‘or’ in this last sentence suggest that a domain can be registered in bad faith as long as it is not used in bad faith and vice versa?” Mendis

22-03-2006, 09:59 PM	#5
texidriver Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Beckofbeyond Posts: 504 Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 1)	jinxie98 Junior Member Welcome, you have a wise head on young shoulders. but who trashed your reputation ! Last edited by texidriver; 22-03-2006 at 10:02 PM.

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

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Domain Name Community	Replies	Last Post
Question for Ed @ NameDrive	denchomsky	NameDrive	2	21-02-2006 12:05 PM
A quick question.....	Brian	Nominet General Information	7	16-02-2006 12:48 AM
Cooking question	bb99	General Board	14	24-01-2006 10:06 AM
How to get a quick transaction with Sedo	ratboy	Sedo	7	27-09-2005 03:48 PM
Quick Question...	.co.uk	General Board	10	07-06-2005 05:17 PM

22-03-2006, 10:11 AM	#2
jinxie98 Junior Member Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 1 Domain Trader Rating: (0% / 0)	The NAF ruling you refer to relates to UDRP a policy established in 1999 for global domain names (com net org etc) Nominet chose to ignore the wording of UDRP and instead decided to write their own policy in 2001 called DRS . UDRP requires that the domain name to have been registered in bad faith AND used in bad faith. Nominet DRS requires that the domain name to have been registered in bad faith OR used in bad faith. This is a fundamental difference which allows decisions to take away co.uk domain names registered a long time ago, in some cases even before the complainant existed or registered a trademark or simply established "rights" (with DRS the complainant doesnt even have to have a registered trademark).

22-03-2006, 11:26 AM	#3
Beasty Join Date: Jan 2006 Posts: 614 Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 1)	Spot on Jinxie - a big difference that has proved very handy for a number of claimants. But the DRS does not require "bad faith" - that was explicitly removed in the consultation period - as it is seen as harder to show than "abusive registration".

22-03-2006, 07:38 PM	#4
Mendis Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 49 Domain Trader Rating: (0% / 0)	Excellent explanation, thanks, I did think that 'and' was a bit ambiguous, Nominet obviously agreed. I'll have to make sure to read up on some more up to date and relevant examples.