grandin

Jac worte:- IMHO, by its very nature "abuse" has to be a pro-active exercise (as in when it is identified or brought to the attention of the relevant authority). To spend time seeking out the abusers of a system could cost millions and would inevitably add to everyone's end price in the future. Why penalise everyone because of infringements by a minority?

I mentioned in my last reply to you that 330,000 applications sought the same 235,000 .eu domain names; so does that mean that 95,000 are potential domain name disputes, where 2 or more entities have tried to register the same domain name? The hypothetical question that springs to my mind is: what would happen if the courts were actually inundated with another 95,000 cases? They are already overstretched. What would happen if the same happened in the DRS or the .eu ADR? Let's assume the Patent Office is handling them; 95,000 cases? IMHO, nobody (whatever body) could cope.

This is why I believe certain preconditions (on rights) have to be set by TPTB in the interests of plain old-fashioned sanity. I accept these preconditions need to be more equitable than they now appear to be.

My comment:- All Sunrise applications were pre-vetted and trade marks checked.....lets say all words, names, places.....are given to the public at a given point....trade mark holders then notice an infringement and therefore file to EURID.....EURID vet as follows:-

Complainants provides screen print of infringement along with copy of trade mark......given not every word is abused...then surely not to pre-judge would have saved EURID times and money.............?

EURID could of morally got it correct and saved on unecessary pre-vetting

LETS KEEP TO THE POINT IF THE PATENT OFFICE WANTED A SINGLE COMPANY TO OWN NAMES THEN CLASSES WOULD NOT EXIST.......NOT SUCH A THING AS A PRIOR RIGHT JUST AN INFRNGEMENT ON A REGISTERED RIGHT AND NO INFRINGEMENT OCCURS BY OWNING AN UNUSED DOMAIN NAME.

Closest case is Citigroup.....but I am sure it did not help the defendants case.... in that the defendant DID set up some sort of web site that allowed him to comment on a confidential email from Citigroup.....the High Court judge didn't truly understand what he was judging on....he said you can own a domain name........er wrong

Lee

grandin

Thanks to texidriver the following extract was taken from a wipo dispute:-

Rights or Legitimate Interests

“Clause” is an ordinary English word. The Respondent says he has as much right as anyone else to register such a word on a “first come, first served” basis and that is what he did. The Panel agrees. It has been common practice for many years for those whose business is dealing in domain names (which is a legitimate business) to seek to register virtually any ordinary English word that they discover is available and not already registered. This is done in the expectation that sooner or later such word will be attractive to a prospective purchaser because of its lexical significance. There is nothing wrong with this. There may of course be circumstances where a word is both an ordinary English word and also extremely closely associated with a particular organization or brand (consider for example “ford”) which would necessitate further consideration of the relevant facts. However in circumstances where the Complainant has failed to file any evidence at all as to the nature and extent of its activities, or how well known it may or may not be, the Panel concludes that the Respondent’s evidence that he had not heard of the Respondent is entirely credible and believable. Accordingly the Panel concludes the Respondent does have a legitimate interest in the Domain Name in terms of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

It follows that the Respondent is entitled to sell the Domain Name at a profit, and to ask whatever price he considers appropriate.

AS I SAID BEFORE NOT SUCH A THING AS A PRIOR RIGHT IN COMMON WORDS
EU DOMAIN NAME REGISTRATION IS AGAINST COMMON SENSE

Lee