jonno

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/5012_bounce.pdf

a bit harsh on Michael Toths behalf don't you think?

it gets me how such a generic term such as this can result in a transfer... havings said that the respondent not responding wouldn't have helped...

__________________
Dublin Hotels

retired_member6

Do you not think the evidence of supplied other TM's may have swung the expert's decision?

domaingenius

Again this shows clearly and categorically how the DRS is an easy touch for companies to grab names. There is no way on this planet that a Court could/would have found any breach of TM unless it was being used to advertise a product similar to procter and gambles. They knew this and this is why they used DRS. It is grossly unfair to half a system (DRS) where on the one hand they accept a TM as being referable to by a complainant, but then in reverse they deny the respondent the rights to use established case law/TM law to refute such a claim.

DG

invincible

I think we've yet to see a Respondent defend their case whereby the domain name is a generic, the Complainant allegedes pattern of abusive registration and Respondent responds, together with supporting evidence, claiming that this registration is not part of a pattern of abusive registration. This appears to be another alternate.co.uk (see that DRS).

Generic name + Complainant establishes that (a) Respondent isn't likely to respond, for whatever reason and (b) Domain Name can be lumped in with others to loosely show pattern of abusive registration.

If Respondent isn't going to be able to respond to defend (b) then the expert, as has occured in these two cases, might well be swayed towards the Complainant.

I don't know why Michael Toth didn't respond. I hope he is fine and well. The decision didn't have to go this way. The Complainant captialised on a number of factors to win. I don't blame them for doing that.

Whois-Search

What has "fabric care products" got to do with the "internet" ?

They won't even use the name have a look where this lot resolves:

http://tafkac.org/products/pg_domain_names.html

And they have the cheek to use the PRSS to look up Toth's names !

All the "expert" needed to do was look "bounce" up in the dictionary !

__________________
Andrew Bennett - www.whois-search.com
Linkedin: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/andrewgbennett

netserve

A classic example of where the expert goes beyond the call of duty to help the complainant.

"The evidence does not provide an address for the registrant and is not conclusive that it is the same person as the Respondent in this Complaint."

Fine, so accept the lack of evidence and that part of the case not proved, but no....

" Further investigation...."

Eh, who is paying you to investigate further?

"Thus, the Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of registrations of domain names which correspond to well known marks"

NO, I think you indicated at the start a lack of evidence. It wasn't until you started doing your own Columbo impression that you decided yourself that there was a link. So the complainant didn't demonstrate anything!

ratboy

It's the lazy mans approach to blame someone immediately who holds a large amount of valuable domains. Yeah natually all of us have domains that are risky for whatever reason, doesn't mean you should lose them.

The man in the street might agree with this decision, but fundementally I think it's wrong.

Best of luck with the others Michael.

PS. on the ghd.co.uk decision, I walked past one of the directors in the pub the other weekend and said quietly - "scum". One up for us. Not sure if he heard though

__________________
I run Top Search Ltd

Whois-Search

Maybe Nominet sent the DRS complaint to his "Tax Haven" Po Box address?

http://www.nationalcolonyrealty.com/tax.html

How often would he check that ? how long did they give him to reply ?

Alot of Top Domainers have these now look at the whois on nameadmininc.com , elequa.com or *******.com

__________________
Andrew Bennett - www.whois-search.com
Linkedin: http://uk.linkedin.com/in/andrewgbennett

invincible

There's no maybe about it. If that was the address on the WHOIS, that would be where it went. Of course it would also go by email, missing any annexes that the Complainant had submitted.

You'll have to ask him yourself.

Same time period every Respondent gets. It's quite possible that the posted copy of the complaint arrived after the deadline for the response. That's why it's also sent electronically.

It's not that it is a PO Box. It's simply an address abroad. Standard post obviously takes longer to get there.

invincible

The Complainant is. They've paid for a decision and the money goes to the Independent Expert. The expert can choose whether to delve a bit further, and how far, or not bother too. In this DRS the Complainant had provided a list of domain names, claiming pattern of abusive registration, but had neglected to provide copies of the WHOIS for each. It's not rocket science for an Independent Expert to spend five minutes WHOISing a bunch of domain names and spot that the Registrant's Agent is the same name as the Registrant. I think that, at that point, anyone would be stretched not to draw the conclusion of them all being one and the same.

Like I said, all the Complainant neglected to do was provide WHOIS print outs of the other domain names and point out what anyone could spot using a copy of Sam Spade for Windows five minutes before tea time.

I hear what you are saying but I think it's a minor point. The major flaw was, quite clearly, the lack of response by the Respondent.