foz

I'm responding to a current complaint and am seeking feedback.

The complainant is using correspondence discussing domain value and sighting clause:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/drs/?contentId=5239

I never approached or solicited the complainant.

Are their any decisions that I can quote, that the expert determined selliing a domain on the aftermarket does not invoke clause 3.a.i.A.?

Thanks.

wb

DRS 9398 looks like it could be very useful?

Had a quick look through and from the sounds of it, it appears to be a similar situation (no action taken against the respondent).

grantw

This has been quoted before in similar DRS's I believe:

Can be found on this page where it is a recommendation, not sure where it appears officially:

http://www.nic.uk/policy/statements/

Grant

__________________
Domain Brokerage :: Bulk UK Whois :: Property Insurance

foz

Thanks for the replies.

Found this.

In the .uk Dispute decision DRS 00359, the expert stated;

“Paragraph 3 a i A reads as follows: Circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or otherwise acquired the Domain Name: A. primarily for the purposes of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the Domain Name to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly associated with acquiring or using the Domain Name;”

“The Respondent operates a web-site offering domain names for sale. There is nothing inherently wrong with that. The question is did the Respondent register the Domain Names for the purposes of selling them to the Complainant or one of its competitors for more than the cost of acquiring or using them. It is not disputed that the Respondent offered to sell the Domain Names to the Complainant for a substantial sum when the Complainant challenged the Respondent. However, there are probably many people or businesses, other than competitors of the Complainant, who might be interested in acquiring the Domain Names for perfectly legitimate reasons, which would not infringe the Complainant's rights. On the evidence before him, the Expert cannot conclude that the requirements of Paragraph 3 a i A are satisfied in this case.”

“In the context of the disputed Domain Names, the Expert therefore considers that the term "Parma ham" is indeed generic. In view of the comments already made by the Expert above, the Expert is also satisfied that the Respondent is making fair use of the Domain Names on its web-site as registering generic terms with a view to selling them for a market value is perfectly fair.”