texidriver

"2. Communication

a. We will send a complaint ... to the Respondent by ..
ii. sending the complaint in electronic form .... by e-mail to;..

A. postmaster@<the Domain Name in dispute>; "

Why does Nominet do that when the default e-mail address @ 123-reg for example is;

...webmaster@the Domain Name in dispute.co.uk !?


"11. Implementation of Expert Decisions

a. If the Expert makes a Decision that a Domain Name registration should be cancelled, suspended, transferred or otherwise amended,"


If there is a choice, I can not find one DRS that made a decision to cancel, suspend or otherwise amend a registration.


"14. Modifications to the Policy and Procedure of the Dispute Resolution Service .........
b. The Respondent will be bound by the Policy and Procedure which are current at the time the Dispute Resolution Service is commenced until the dispute is concluded."


Why does this only apply to the Respondent ?

invincible

RFC conventions. Please don't ask me to reference which one.


You didn't look very hard! See the bottom of http://www.nic.uk/disputes/drs/decis...contentId=2106

Probably because they are the one with the domain name, so have a legal contract with Nominet in relation to it. The complainant does not.

Michael Penman

1. IETF RFC say postmaster@ should be working, not necessarily webmaster@ or info@ ...

2. There are a couple of suspensions and at least one suspend then cancel. They tend to be reserved for when transfer wouldn't be appropriate (certain .me.uk and so forth). Often cancelllation would just get the domain name picked up by another abusive registration, and suspension is a bit of a nuisance for us and useless to both parties.

3. The complainant signs a contract to use the current DRS when they sign the complaint form. (Which is why you'll find one early case failed because the form was unsigned.)

olebean

That is a huge assumption! Can you explain that further?

grandin

Michael Penman, an employee of Nominet, states 'Often cancellation would get the domain name picked up by another abusive registration, and suspension is a bit of a nuisance for us and useless to both parties'

My comment: How often? To remain open and transparent can you post the stats please? Suspension may well be a bit of a Nuisance and useless to the complainant but I thought the remedy was there to protect against infringement/passing off not to put the complainant in a better position than he was prior to the infringement/passing off? Bounce.co.uk was given to the complainant even though they have no more rights to the common word than me. I want the name, why can't I have an equal opportunity to register the name? Does this not go against fair trade?

Given that the experts are mostly working for large law firms wouldn't it be a good idea for the firms to disclose the proportion of revenue derived from Trade Mark holders? Some may say that if the law firm had 80% revenue from Trade Mark holders that this may persuade the expert to rule in favour of the Trade Mark Holder, especially given that the law hasn't decided on many aspects of domain name abuse? Not my view though.

Lee

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

Jac

It might well be an assumption olebean, but it is probably one based on experience. The fact is, most good domain names that drop are caught within seconds by the fastest script in the west. Just recently I tried to register 6 domain names (for separate clients) which were dropping, and the clients were watching and hoping. In one specific instance one client even employed the services of a dropcatcher to improve her chances. All of these 6 separate registrations were caught and registered by different domainers and are now pointing at PPC sites. None of the clients got even a sniff.

Conclusion: some assumptions seem more fair than others.

Regards
James Conaghan

olebean

Jac

Can you clarify what you are suggesting?

Is it that drop catches activity by definition on registering a domain is an abusive registrations?

Is it that PPC is abusive use?

both?

Or something else?

It also would be nice, for Michael to clarify his own comments rather than there being a probably wouldnt you agree Jac?

Jac

Michael Penman wrote: "Often cancellation would just get the domain name picked up by another abusive registration". You answered; that was a huge assumption. I was just pointing out that the minute any covetable domain name is dropped, it gets attacked by various dropcatchers trying to grab it first. There's no assumption in that; this is what happens in reality.

However, whether a registration is abusive or not is ultimately in the lap of the DRS or UDRP Gods, but there is a growing feeling amongst ordinary user registrants that dropcatching (and domaining) places them at a distinct disadvantage; and for every dropcatcher or domainer reading this, there are hundreds (if not thousands) of ordinary user registrants lobbying Nominet and the PAB about the perceived injustices of dropcatching and domaining. And I don't just mean elected PAB Members I also mean appointed members from government, business, and industry.

With the advent of the WSIS (and IGF) the DTI and Government are already taking a keener interest in the internet in general and the issue of domaining and its merits and demerits has already been broached and will inevitably come up at the PAB table sometime soon. And before you all start screaming at me per se, I am just answering olebean's question and I figure it's an opportune moment to point out the problems from 'the other side'.

The fact is, dropcatchers would not try to catch a domain if they didn't think they would derive some financial benefit from it. The only way they can derive financial benefit from it (eg: PPC) is if the domain name resembles a well known brand, if it has a history of usage or if it is a typo which tricks people into going to a PPC site. I have said before, domaining is a precarious business model because each dropcatcher or domainer is hundreds if not thousands of times more likely to be hit with a DRS because of the sheer numbers of domain names they hold. It is after all a numbers game; as indeed is all direct selling or marketing. Ordinary user registrants are less likely to be hit with a DRS because the 'law of averages' makes it less likely.

bounce.co.uk was an unusual case and the 3 appeals panel experts found as they did, but if you look at the One in a Million court case, the appeal decision in that instance was quite fierce in that the judges found that mere registration could be seen as 'passing off' and that domain names could be 'instruments of fraud'. They were certainly swayed by what they regarded as the pattern of abuse of the specific registrant in that case; so the principle of pattern of registration (or pattern of abuse) seems to have been established as far back as 1997.

A lot of people on this board seem to think that trade mark law is clear cut but nothing legal ever is. The DRS actually shields people from the full force of the courts (and the accompanying legal expense) and even if the DRS was a Patent Office system, there would probably still be upfront fees for both sides. Personally, I think we need to work within the present system and try to change it to the equal advantage of all concerned.

That's probably more than you wanted to know, but I think it explains the different viewpoints of other stakeholder groups.

Regards
James Conaghan

domaingenius

But as the Judge also pointed out "There is NO tort of going equipped to pass off" ,meaning that simply owning a domain name is not in itself passing off,but if one was to use it for the same class/es as a TM exists for then could be a problem.

DG

olebean

Jac

Some of what is being argued is fairly poignant and logical.

In contrast, views that "dropcatchers / domainers" are apparently in some way vermin with no apparent other legitimate activity other than what you write or even the nouse to register anything other than a brand able domain is frankly disturbing.

This statement attempted to answer one section of what I wrote. Unless PPC and domainers / dropcatchers are considered hand in glove.... Including those domain owners who have maybe 1 domain that that is parked?