invincible

I'm not sure if discussion of this has occured on here prior to me posting about it now. I've noticed that a previous thread relating to the original decision (which went in favour of the Respondent, thus no domain name transfer), has been closed. However given that there has been a subsequent appeal by the Complainant, and that appeal has been published on the Nominet web site, I cannot currently think why this shouldn't be discussed. I have, however, noted that despite the appeal decision date being 07/01/2011 the domain name is still registered to the Respondent. It is, therefore, possible that further legal action may be ongoing.

I don't appear to be able to link directly to a decision anymore so anyone interested should visit http://www.nic.uk/disputes/drs/decis...cisionssearch/ and look for case #8634.

The appeal panel decided that the term "emirates" was not a natural term that someone might actually use when refering to "travel to the UAE" (United Arab Emirates) in the same way that they might say they are going to Argentina. They felt it was far more likely for someone to refer to a city, such as Dubai. If referring to the country, they felt they'd use "UAE" or "the Emirates" rather than just "emirates". Given I've been three times, I'd personally agree with that. Sorry Michael.

The appeal panel also drew distrinction between "Emirates", "emirate" and "the Emirates" and felt that "Emirates" had acquired very strong secondary meaning. They were also suspicious of Respondents ascertain that at the time of registering "emirates.co.uk" in 2002, given his interest in the travel sector, he apparently was unware of the Complainant. Given they didn't believe the Respondent, they therefore inferred from this that he very probably designed his use of emirates.co.uk in light of his actual awareness of the Complainant. Unfortunately, again, regardless of whether it is actually true that the Respondent really wasn't aware of Emirates (the airline) at the time of registering the emirates.co.uk domain name, I also find it a stretch to believe that he wasn't. If it had been me, and I really hadn't been aware of Emirates the airline, I'm not sure I would have actually stated that in my DRS response. Although it could really be true, I think it's just too hard a pill for an Expert to swallow. By stating something that seems unlikely, regardless of whether it is true, in my opinion it potentially casts doubt on the legitimacy of the rest of the Response. So, again, sorry Michael.

The appeal panel didn't give any weight to the delay in the Complainant filing a complaint. There's not really any provision in the DRS for this.

The Appeal Panel decided that the domain name registration to the Respondent is abusive and ordered the transfer to the Respondent. At some point, I imagine, we'll see that occur. Michael has therefore, now made it to the 3 case Respondent table page.

rob

For verbatim bounce and emirates.

Its as much as a joke table as the premier league before the season starts with blackpool third.

__________________
Eat more chips! Dont let salad win! hey.
how to sell a website | sell your website to me whats the number for milk tokens? TDA Blue Badge
Wrexham News Wrexham Weather
Owain Glyndwr

anthony

Is the table actually legal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but it serves no lawful purpose that I can see. Even real Courts are not allowed to disclose past history of 'accused' parties.

__________________
WEEKEND .org.uk Reduced to £2k for short period only, great affiliate opportunities.

invincible

It's just a summary of what anyone searching through the results of the decisions, also available online, can find out.

invincible

I thought the decision went in his favour for verbatim.co.uk, therefore it'd be down to that other domain name listed on the page. I do, however, think each decision should be judged on its own merit. One doesn't affect another.

anthony

I can appreciate that, but it looks more like 'repeat offenders' being made an example of.

__________________
WEEKEND .org.uk Reduced to £2k for short period only, great affiliate opportunities.

invincible

It just assists enforcement of 3c of the Policy, being:

"c. There shall be a presumption of Abusive Registration if the Complainant proves that the Respondent has been found to have made an Abusive Registration in three (3) or more DRS cases in the two (2) years before the Complaint was filed. This presumption can be rebutted (see paragraphs 4(a)(iv) and 4 (c)).

Do you haven any views about any of the specific points that the Experts raised in their appeal decision?

anthony

You're right, but that is also a determination that can clearly be made by any 'expert' as part of their decision, therefore 3c could be viewed as pointless, but it does allow Nominet to publish the table I suppose!

__________________
WEEKEND .org.uk Reduced to £2k for short period only, great affiliate opportunities.

invincible

I don't think many experts, writing a full decision for a fee of £750, will want to spend the time required to read through a list of several thousand Respondents to determine if a Respondent is a three strike contender. Therefore Nominet will have to keep score somewhere. The fact that Nominet publish the score board online rather than keeping it between themselves and the Expert who is making a decision is possibly immaterial. At least it's transparent.

anthony

No one said anything about the experts reading thousands of Respondents (responses), where did you get that from!

There is no problem with Nominet 'keeping a score' as you put it. However, maybe the 'expert' could also simply use the search facility you highlighted earlier:

The table is mugshot stuff, surely!

What do you think about the DRS reliability rates, out of 36 Appeal Decisions, 16 were overturned. Even allowing for poor 1st submissions, 44% overturned should prompt some to question the quality of the DRSs concerned?

__________________
WEEKEND .org.uk Reduced to £2k for short period only, great affiliate opportunities.