Search for your domain name

admin

Bounce Appeal Decision - click here

__________________
Domain Appraisal | Domain Escrow Service | UK Appliances | Surrey Deals | Domain Auctions from Acorn Domains
Subscribe to our Domains For Sale newsletter :: Submit a Domain For Sale to our newsletter :: Domains For Sale

Jac

Erm.... this is a non sequitur. Just because a litigator loses one court case it does not follow that he will lose subsequent cases. The reason one loses a court case is not because they are bad or good at their job, it is simply that the presiding judge sees something in the other party's argument that sways his decision. This is why most courts will allow for appeal within their judgement.

As an aside, having had recent discussions with the "individual" you so cavalierly refer to, I would say he makes a convincing argument and is certainly capable of articulating any legal defence necessary. I would personally have no problem in recommending his services.

As an aside, have you sat across the table and argued a legal point with him? If not, it seems a tad inappropriate to make these unsubstantiated inferences as to his professional capabilities.

Regards
James Conaghan

olebean

I echo these sentiments

OMFG we agree Jac

invincible

If I'd been able to attend the recent Nominet meeting, I would have done. What I was attempting to get across, whilst trying to be as non-specific as possible, was "how it might have looked". Aside from myself, three others I spoke too - all well respected - had the same opinion. None of us have an axe to grind but all of us felt the choice of representation, given the absolute specifics was unusual.

I disagree with you that appearance isn't a factor in determining a decision. I think it's a very real factor, however I am unaware of whether you have been on the respondent end of a DRS, so perhaps the concept is alien to you.

One wouldn't hire John Zuccarini to defend oneselves at a UDRP because, amongst other things, it wouldn't look good. Before anyone says it I am not saying respondents agent is comparable to JZ. I am simply trying to find an analogy to demonstrate why some might come to the opinion I , and others, have expressed.

Olebean, sneezycheese and yourself have met him. I haven't. However if people are expressing this opinion, I find it doubtful that the same thoughts wouldn't have entered the minds of the independent experts.

BTW I contemplated whether or not to make the point on here in the first place. I did so because the view has been expressed in conversation therefore I consider it relevant. Better it be raised and discussed than swept under the carpet.

sneezycheese

...Well said Jac!

There's enough 'assuming' going on as it is (re: 'experts' going off into 'fairy tale' mode), without having any more being layed on us.


My two peneth worth (IMHO):

1. One word 'Generics' are not only Brandable, but Trade Markable! Thus it seems will always be subject to be 'aquired' from anyone under the current DRS. So we have an IP Lawyers dream - i.e. 'Exclusive' rights to a name! - Good job the Patent Office isn't like this!

2. Two/three/etc. word descriptive generic 'Terms' may not be Trade Marked due to their 'decriptive' nature. So are they a 'safer' bet???

Mmm... Puts an interesting 'slant' on things - i.e. In light of what we've seen, what is the true value of single word Generics vs multi word descriptive ones?

Open to comments (including Nominet)...

texidriver

[quote=sneezycheese]..

2. Two/three/etc. word descriptive generic 'Terms' may not be Trade Marked due to their 'decriptive' nature. So are they a 'safer' bet???

Maybe not ! (copied from another thread)

truckandtrolley.co.uk DRS

"5. Decision
I have found that
(i) the Complainant has rights in respect of a name or mark which is similar to the Domain Name and
(ii) the Domain Name in the hands of the Respondent is an Abusive Registration.
However I also have found that the words “truck and trolley” are descriptive in that form and probably generic. On that basis I am unwilling to accede to the Complainant’s application for the Domain Name to be transferred to it. I therefore direct only that the registration of the Domain Name, “truckandtrolley.co.uk” in the name of the Respondent be cancelled.
Andrew Goodman
15 October 2002"

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/1016...andtrolley.pdf

grandin

you texi are quietly clever...keep up the research.

what is your background...I am intrigued?

texi thy intelligent one

Lee

__________________
Buy To Let Mortgages Buy To Let mortgages Discount Mortgages landlord insurance
student loan Commercial Mortgages Fixed Mortgages UK Hotels UK Holidays

Whois-Search

Hope your not going to leave it there Michael ....... The DRS appeal cost you £3000 + Beasty's fee therefore carry on. Go for a Judicial Review !

I think its time we get even with these guys ......

As Nominet said at the meeting the other day www.notnominet.org.uk is perfectly ok.

How about after every DRS case like this we register the "not" version of the domain......

notbounce.co.uk

And on there have the a statement from the "coalition of DRS victims" !

Also as governments ...... i mean Nominet only change policy on the basis of bad press ......... I think everyone should contact Kieren McCarthy with their DRS story. http://www.kierenmccarthy.me.uk

__________________
Andrew Bennett
www.whois-search.com - www.whois-register.com - www.domain-shop.co.uk

Jac

Which guys? Nominet or the DRS Experts?

So lemme understand your philosophy. If you ever go to court and lose the case, you will also try to "get even" with those guys? (Just trying to establish the thought process here.)

For the sake of fairplay and good order it might have been appropriate to also type in Nominet's reasons why they felt notnominet was okay. Assuming you are interested in fairplay and good order that is?

Uh? Nominet do not change policy because of bad press, they change policy on the basis of stakeholder feedback. This includes members, tag holders, domainers, dropcatchers and all other stakeholder groups like government and yes! Even Kieran (gawd bless his sometimes tabloid view of things). That is why it is important for you and everyone else reading this to respond to the upcoming DRS review consultation.

As an aside, as Lee Grandin posted in another thread, it is good to see that each DRS does indeed seem to be judged on its merits... as they should be. DRS 03658 applies. However, everybody on here keeps confusing Nominet's role and the experts who actually make and write up the decisions. Nominet does not make DRS decisions, and no matter how much you protest, it doesn't make it so. Can we please inject a little reality into our observations and criticisms?

Regards
James Conaghan

sneezycheese

...REALITY:

1. Nominet make 'THE RULES'.
2. Nominet does the 'HIRING and FIRING'.

...So Nominets role is quite 'LARGE'.