Bounce.co.uk appeal decision

disruptive · 11-07-2006, 11:09 AM

I really feel like taking companies on...perhaps I'll register a trademark for a name that I really take the shine too. It might take some research but I can do it....trouble is it might be one of you guys that own it.

texidriver · 21-07-2006, 05:17 PM

"It is believed that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such behaviour, evidenced by the fact that the Respondent presently holds 2793 ‘.co.uk’ domain names, many of which appear to correspond to the trade mark rights of third parties.

– he therefore has a track record of hijacking other people’s names.

A previous decision was made against the Respondent in 2003 [sic], ordering the transfer of the website universityoflondon.co.uk to the lawful owner of that name (DRS 1740).

The Respondent has established no legitimate interest under the Domain Name and appears to have engaged in passing off by registering domain names that correspond to the trade mark rights of third parties. This evidences Abusive Registration."

http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/DRS/bounce%20appeal.pdf

"Although some of the domain names registered by Respondent do raise questions, a bare list of domain names without evidence of how they are being used and whether they reflect bad faith, and a single adverse decision, do not make a pattern. Moreover, even if it were a pattern, and even if Respondent was found to have been a cybersquatter in another case, the question in this case is whether Respondent has cybersquatted this Domain Name.

(decisions against same respondent in other actions is not necessarily relevant because “[e]ven a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes”)."

the Complaint is denied."

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2006-0445.html

DRS or UDRP. some experts are more expert.

aqls · 21-07-2006, 05:20 PM

Nice one texi.

Incidentally, the reason he didn't reply to Nominet emails in the first place was to establish categorically that there were other more pertinent interpretations of the term bounce . . .

-aqls-

Whois-Search · 21-07-2006, 11:14 PM

I'm not sure who did the PRSS lookup on Michael Toth's names (which you have to pay an extra £400 + VAT for http://www.nominet.org.uk/other/prss/) but the problem is it's written into the DRS policy:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/drs/policy/

Quote:

3. C. iii. The Complainant can demonstrate that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of registrations where the Respondent is the registrant of domain names (under .uk or otherwise) which correspond to well known names or trade marks in which the Respondent has no apparent rights, and the Domain Name is part of that pattern;

"Pattern" only appears in the UDRP at:

Quote:

4.b.(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct;

http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm

aqls · 21-07-2006, 11:29 PM

so change policy.

-aqls-

grandin · 22-07-2006, 05:14 AM

The case also notes: Because the Policy requires a showing of both bad-faith registration and bad-faith use

This differs to the DRS where it seems it can be one or the other or both

11-07-2006, 11:09 AM	#61
disruptive Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 613 No Classified Ratings Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 4)	I really feel like taking companies on...perhaps I'll register a trademark for a name that I really take the shine too. It might take some research but I can do it....trouble is it might be one of you guys that own it. __________________ QuoteSmart\|nano-technology.co.uk\|hybridautos.co.uk\|nanopowder.com\|biosensors.co.uk

21-07-2006, 05:17 PM	#62
texidriver Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Beckofbeyond Posts: 504 No Classified Ratings Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 1)	even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes "It is believed that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such behaviour, evidenced by the fact that the Respondent presently holds 2793 ‘.co.uk’ domain names, many of which appear to correspond to the trade mark rights of third parties. – he therefore has a track record of hijacking other people’s names. A previous decision was made against the Respondent in 2003 [sic], ordering the transfer of the website universityoflondon.co.uk to the lawful owner of that name (DRS 1740). The Respondent has established no legitimate interest under the Domain Name and appears to have engaged in passing off by registering domain names that correspond to the trade mark rights of third parties. This evidences Abusive Registration." http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/DRS/bounce%20appeal.pdf "Although some of the domain names registered by Respondent do raise questions, a bare list of domain names without evidence of how they are being used and whether they reflect bad faith, and a single adverse decision, do not make a pattern. Moreover, even if it were a pattern, and even if Respondent was found to have been a cybersquatter in another case, the question in this case is whether Respondent has cybersquatted this Domain Name. (decisions against same respondent in other actions is not necessarily relevant because “[e]ven a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes”)." the Complaint is denied." http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2006-0445.html DRS or UDRP. some experts are more expert. Last edited by texidriver; 21-07-2006 at 05:43 PM.

22-07-2006, 05:14 AM	#66
grandin Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 994 No Classified Ratings Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 11)	It differs The case also notes: Because the Policy requires a showing of both bad-faith registration and bad-faith use This differs to the DRS where it seems it can be one or the other or both __________________ Buy To Let Mortgages Buy To Let mortgages Discount Mortgages landlord insurance van insurance student loan Commercial Mortgages Fixed Mortgages UK Hotels UK Holidays

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
Phone4U.co.uk Court of Appeal Decision	Beasty	Domain Name Disputes	17	31-05-2006 10:13 AM
1st published ADR decision	domaingenius	.EU Domains	1	19-04-2006 06:34 PM
WIPO decision	texidriver	Domain Name Disputes	1	15-03-2006 08:44 AM
ghd.co.uk appeal decision	EdPhillips	Domain Name Disputes	13	03-03-2006 06:13 PM
Nominet DRS decision on 3 letter domain name	Noble Pasty	Domain Name Disputes	2	24-01-2006 06:11 PM

21-07-2006, 05:20 PM	#63
aqls Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 1,075 No Classified Ratings Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 18)	Nice one texi. Incidentally, the reason he didn't reply to Nominet emails in the first place was to establish categorically that there were other more pertinent interpretations of the term bounce . . . -aqls-

21-07-2006, 11:29 PM	#65
aqls Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 1,075 No Classified Ratings Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 18)	so change policy. -aqls-