foz

If this summary decision has been made, shouldn't the whois reflect the complainant? Otherwise I think this is already going down the appeal path?

In relation to Philosophy.co.uk case.

invincible

It is possible that the Complainant hasn't completed all the necessary procedures to transfer the domain name, yet.

__________________
Email: invincible.domains@gmail.com (I have disabled private messaging for ease) :)

foz

Decision date 19/09/2011.

So that's 29/09/2011.

I guess well know by Monday, if an appeal is on.

foz

Does Velvet hang out here? If their was an error in receiving the initial complaint, I would be more than happy to contribute £500 towards the appeal fee.

invincible

Ten working days would exclude weekends, bank holidays etc.

Probably a bit after. I've not got my calendar out.

__________________
Email: invincible.domains@gmail.com (I have disabled private messaging for ease) :)

invincible

Okay.

It's a couple of years since it was all discussed, but it does appear that Complainant pays £10 to begin DRS and if Respondent does not submit a Response, the Complainant can elect to (a) Do nothing and the DRS is closed, or (b) Pay £200 for a Summary Decision made by an Independent Expert or (c) Pay £750 for a Full Decision made by an Independent Expert. I noticed that with the original oasis.co.uk DRS, despite the Respondent not submitting a Response, the Complainant elected to pay £750 for a Full Decision rather than £200 for a Summary Decision. I wonder why.

For clarification, are you saying you're aware of "100k+" ("one hundred thousand, plus") domain names that could, in your opinion, be won on a summary DRS decision because the companies are out of business? Even if a Registrant is out of business, submitting a DRS and paying £200 for a Summary Decision does not guarantee that the Complainant will be awarded the domain name because the Complainant still has to demonstrate both Rights and Abusive Registration. I've counted sixteen Complaints where Complainant paid the £200 for a Summary Decision but wasn't awarded the domain name (i.e. "no action"), because they weren't able to demonstrate one or the other of those.

That link doesn't work but I added ".pdf" to the end and found it.

Regardless of what was discussed back when the consultation occured, which was over two years ago, has the introduction of the Default Transfer/Summary Decision proven to be such a terrible thing? The answer could be found by pulling up a list of all the DRS decisions and seeing how many obviously decent generics/valuable domain names in some other way have been the subject of a Summary Decision (regardless of whether the decision resulted in "Transfer" or "No Action"). How many of these type of domain names fall within that list? I haven't noticed a rise in the number of DRS complaints filed against generic/valuable domain names registered to clients that I do business with, and I've not been made aware of an increase by any other Registrants that hold high value domain names either.

I suspect the vast majority of domain names that appear in Summary Decisions are typos of famous brands, banks and financial institutions. If I am correct, and the vast majority are of that type, is it better or worse for those Complainants to have a fast track and less expensive way of obtaining what is most probably an infringement on their rights when a Respondent fails to file a response?

__________________
Email: invincible.domains@gmail.com (I have disabled private messaging for ease) :)

invincible

Thanks. I'd forgotten the details of that one. The introduction of new evidence was allowed "in the interests of justice". So in exceptional cases, which that one was, it is allowed. Are you aware of any others?

The bounce.co.uk Appeal was the opposite. The Appeal Panel didn't allow the submission of new evidence, because they didn't consider that anything newly submitted was in the interests of justice or raised exceptional circumstances. They did comment that they looked at the submissions, in order to determine whether it fell within the "interests of justice/exceptional circumstances" criteria but as nothing did it wouldn't have changed their view of the original DRS decision resulting in a transfer to the Complainant.

__________________
Email: invincible.domains@gmail.com (I have disabled private messaging for ease) :)

invincible

If any of this is accurate (and the company Velvet Capital does appear to own fishing.co.uk), they probably don't need your £500.

__________________
Email: invincible.domains@gmail.com (I have disabled private messaging for ease) :)

anthony

Appealing a decision is a very expensive move to make for most registrants, especially those who would consider the decision making process to be initially flawed, it's a luxury only open to a wealthier few. Last time i checked (http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/domain...tml#post314025) 44% of the original DRS decisions were then overturned, not a good reflection of the DRS as a safe option to choose from what i can see.

__________________
For sale: Labradorite | Suppressors | Periscopes

invincible

Current total number of appeals: 36
Current number of appeals upheld ("no action"): 14
Current number of appeals upheld ("transfer"): 5
Current number of appeals overturned ("no action"): 5
Current number of appeals overturned "(transfer"): 11
Current number of appeals resulting in a cancellation of registration: 1

19 appeals in total resulted in the original DRS decision remaining the same (14 of those in favour of the Respondent, 5 in favour of the Complainant). 16 appeals in total resulted in the original DRS decision being overturned (5 in favour of the Respondent and 11 in favour of the Complainant). The 1 remaining appeal decision which resulted in a cancellation of the registration is one that also goes against the Respondent, and in favour of the Complainant.

So we've had 14 + 5 appeals go in favour of Respondents (total 19) and 5 + 11 + 1 appeals go in favour of Complainants (17).

Ignoring the 1 appeal cancellation decision, 45.7% of decisions overturned the original complaint.

Anthony, what you appear to be inferring is that because 44% (or 45.7% based on the above) of appeals overturned the original decision this %age indicates that the DRS is not a safe option to chose. I would actually expect this higher statistic because people are rarely motivated to fork out £3000 on an appeal if they feel they don't have a good chance of winning it. This statistic cannot be correlated with the total number of DRS decisions that have ever been made because in order to do that every DRS decision would need to be put through a proper appeal, to ensure each had undergone the same level of analysis. Not practical.

If we were able to run every single DRS through a proper appeal, at no cost, do you think 44% (or 45.7%) of them would be overturned? I don't because for one thing, there are a large number of decisions which are for obvious and blatant trademark infringements.

__________________
Email: invincible.domains@gmail.com (I have disabled private messaging for ease) :)