mercer.co.uk DRS

Whois-Search · 01-09-2006, 11:47 PM

Another new DRS just appeared online:

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/8924_mercer.pdf

Quote:

The fact that the Respondent uses the Domain Name for the purposes of Google advertising does not protect it from the fact that its main objective is to sell the domain name for a profit. As proof of this, the Respondent makes an explicit offer for sale of the Domain Name on the MERCER.CO.UK web site, asking for no less than “£995, €1450, $1830 or equivalent, and the price of this domain name may be much higher.”

So should he have created a textile shopping site instead?

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mercer

LeeOwen · 02-09-2006, 12:29 AM

What's the adjudicator's problem, it isn't illegal to sell domain names. The company paid £750 plus legal team instead of just the £950, it shows you should just ask for £10,000 then let them get on with it, pathetic.

And they mention out of pocket costs when is nominet going to remove this bloody stupid bit of wording? Time and time again defenders of Nominet say how much their staff should earn an hour in justifcation of the fees charged for transfer before they were dropped on release of due information, and here they state a person should only earn £6 plus out of pocket costs, so put in the DRS reply, out of pocket costs are £250 an hour and the time it took to watch and register and plan a catch and then deal with any offers and COMPLAINTS. Making £125,000 so stick it up your arse.

REMOVE THE WORDING!

Also there's slander in that DRS, get your solicitor on to them.

It's a bad decision and the adjudicator should have stated, pay the man the amount of money for the domain name instead of the £10000 it's taken you to get this far.

Bad decision. Change the wording nominet, who are you to say what is out of pocket expenses, respondents need to put £250 an hour in the DRS defence from now own. Job done. Nice use by the complainant on British TM law, summed it right up, it's a load of rollocks.

I'd have replied "I regd the domain name because I bloody wanted to you yank"

*I wouldn't have regd the domain nor got a chance but shows the company has too much money and would rather go all round the houses than pay the little man who had the better idea of buying a surname domain they forgot about.

grandin · 02-09-2006, 07:03 AM

By ordering the transfer and not cancelling and making re-available has the expert decided the law in respect to a who has 'highest rights'. The expert has been made aware that the name represents a surname and therefore 'rights' aren't just rights relating to the complainant.

As EURID told me......A Trade Mark holder may THINK they have higher rights but it doesn't necessarily imply that they do...they went on to say that the only place to resolve the issue is in a court or arbitration proceeding.....I will have to get the email out but it read something like that

Given that the expert has shown trade mark holders at the top of the tree then I would expect the Policy to reflect this

Lee

FC Domains · 02-09-2006, 09:20 AM

It is apparent that the Respondent believed that the Domain Name
would attract potential purchasers, which would include the Complainant.

So the judgement is that a registration is abusive if you think that you will be able to sell it.
The registrant said he had never heard of this company, so what gives them a claim?

domaingenius · 02-09-2006, 09:55 AM

Yet again this is why in order to be fair to everyone the DRS must be aligned with Trademark laws and rules and then everyone knows where they stand. WHY do Nominet, and indeed WIPO, consider that selling domains for more than you bought them for is a "crime" ?????. If Nominet dont want people reselling domains for a profit then they should make it a rule and bar speculators altogether, but of course they wont do that.

DG

DoubleTap · 02-09-2006, 11:00 AM

Nominet's structure is based in part on fee paying memberships, amongst which a number of drop catching tag holders who are, depending on the names they acquire, able to sell them on, a situation which has been known and accepted for many years. Although a not for profit organisation itself, one presumes that as a limited company its records will reflect it makes corporate profits against which it will pay corporation tax.
To publically bar people from making a profit from the sale of domain names would in fact be counter productive to them, as it aligns them more towards the requirements of a government body, and would only serve the wishes of those who would like it to be so.
One should be thankful that Nominet is currently structured in this way, as there is no way on earth that a government body would allow for private members to be given the advantages of the current tag holder structure. All government bodies which are required to provide public services must do so in an even handed and fair manner to the public. On this basis though, it would be in Nominet's interests to clarify its acceptance of making a profit, else it will find itself more exposed to the calls of those wishing to see it made more accountable to government.

admin · 02-09-2006, 11:51 AM

Quote:

It follows that this has probably attracted visitors to the Domain Name website thereby resulting in a profit to the Respondent with each click on the related Google links, thereby taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s Rights.

So now they are saying having Google Adsense on your domain can help you lose it!

LeeOwen · 02-09-2006, 11:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by admin

So now they are saying having Google Adsense on your domain can help you lose it!

The main is an idiot, and below is the proof and I don't care how many letters he has after his name. Probably five, i d i o t.

Whois-Search · 02-09-2006, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by LeeOwen

The man is an idiot, and below is the proof and I don't care how many letters he has after his name. Probably five, i d i o t.

http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/youare.php

Ellis · 03-09-2006, 12:31 PM

Another stinker!

I would get in touch will M&S and Mercer Dial Guages and get them to issue DRS's too.

Mercer Dial Guages has held a patent since 1944.

Then let's see how the "expert" deals with that!

02-09-2006, 07:03 AM	#3
grandin Join Date: May 2006 Posts: 991 Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 11)	rights By ordering the transfer and not cancelling and making re-available has the expert decided the law in respect to a who has 'highest rights'. The expert has been made aware that the name represents a surname and therefore 'rights' aren't just rights relating to the complainant. As EURID told me......A Trade Mark holder may THINK they have higher rights but it doesn't necessarily imply that they do...they went on to say that the only place to resolve the issue is in a court or arbitration proceeding.....I will have to get the email out but it read something like that Given that the expert has shown trade mark holders at the top of the tree then I would expect the Policy to reflect this Lee __________________ Buy To Let Mortgages Buy To Let mortgages Discount Mortgages landlord insurance van insurance student loan Commercial Mortgages Fixed Mortgages UK Hotels UK Holidays

02-09-2006, 09:20 AM	#4
FC Domains Join Date: Mar 2005 Posts: 695 Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 22)	It is apparent that the Respondent believed that the Domain Name would attract potential purchasers, which would include the Complainant. So the judgement is that a registration is abusive if you think that you will be able to sell it. The registrant said he had never heard of this company, so what gives them a claim? __________________ Colin FC Domains Domains drop-caught and sold at wholesale prices

02-09-2006, 11:00 AM	#6
DoubleTap Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 344 Domain Trader Rating: (0% / 0)	Makin a profit Nominet's structure is based in part on fee paying memberships, amongst which a number of drop catching tag holders who are, depending on the names they acquire, able to sell them on, a situation which has been known and accepted for many years. Although a not for profit organisation itself, one presumes that as a limited company its records will reflect it makes corporate profits against which it will pay corporation tax. To publically bar people from making a profit from the sale of domain names would in fact be counter productive to them, as it aligns them more towards the requirements of a government body, and would only serve the wishes of those who would like it to be so. One should be thankful that Nominet is currently structured in this way, as there is no way on earth that a government body would allow for private members to be given the advantages of the current tag holder structure. All government bodies which are required to provide public services must do so in an even handed and fair manner to the public. On this basis though, it would be in Nominet's interests to clarify its acceptance of making a profit, else it will find itself more exposed to the calls of those wishing to see it made more accountable to government.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

02-09-2006, 12:29 AM	#2
LeeOwen Banned Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Dristor, Bucharest, Romania Posts: 3,722 Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 14)	What's the adjudicator's problem, it isn't illegal to sell domain names. The company paid £750 plus legal team instead of just the £950, it shows you should just ask for £10,000 then let them get on with it, pathetic. And they mention out of pocket costs when is nominet going to remove this bloody stupid bit of wording? Time and time again defenders of Nominet say how much their staff should earn an hour in justifcation of the fees charged for transfer before they were dropped on release of due information, and here they state a person should only earn £6 plus out of pocket costs, so put in the DRS reply, out of pocket costs are £250 an hour and the time it took to watch and register and plan a catch and then deal with any offers and COMPLAINTS. Making £125,000 so stick it up your arse. REMOVE THE WORDING! Also there's slander in that DRS, get your solicitor on to them. It's a bad decision and the adjudicator should have stated, pay the man the amount of money for the domain name instead of the £10000 it's taken you to get this far. Bad decision. Change the wording nominet, who are you to say what is out of pocket expenses, respondents need to put £250 an hour in the DRS defence from now own. Job done. Nice use by the complainant on British TM law, summed it right up, it's a load of rollocks. I'd have replied "I regd the domain name because I bloody wanted to you yank" *I wouldn't have regd the domain nor got a chance but shows the company has too much money and would rather go all round the houses than pay the little man who had the better idea of buying a surname domain they forgot about.

02-09-2006, 09:55 AM	#5
domaingenius Join Date: Dec 2004 Posts: 1,423 Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 1)	Yet again this is why in order to be fair to everyone the DRS must be aligned with Trademark laws and rules and then everyone knows where they stand. WHY do Nominet, and indeed WIPO, consider that selling domains for more than you bought them for is a "crime" ?????. If Nominet dont want people reselling domains for a profit then they should make it a rule and bar speculators altogether, but of course they wont do that. DG

03-09-2006, 12:31 PM	#10
Ellis Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Big Brother might be watching me, but I 'ain't watching Big Brother! Posts: 786 Domain Trader Rating: (100% / 3)	Another stinker! I would get in touch will M&S and Mercer Dial Guages and get them to issue DRS's too. Mercer Dial Guages has held a patent since 1944. Then let's see how the "expert" deals with that!