Hmmmmm fair decision in your opinion ?
This decision is WRONG, WRONG, WRONG.
To Rob, Domainseller200, bbs and Mat and any other domainer on this site, some insight into what really went on,
This decision is wrong on so many levels and the owner has lodged a complaint against the Expert with Nominet’s Legal director as is his not advertised and little known right.
1) Fremantle had already offered to buy the name.
2) The name precedes the show by over a year.
3) The site is an online talent finder and markets unsigned talent based on an original idea.
4) The site clearly publishes a DISCLAIMER on the footer of
every page on the site stating it "HAS NO CONNECTION" with the tv show.
5) The site has over 3,400 members.
6) The site gets more traffic than the tv shows official website.
FACT: Fremantle offered to buy the BritainsGotTalent.co.uk but their derisory initial offer was refused.
FACT: The solicitor acting for Fremantle
personally promised that a satisfactory figure and agreement would be structured.
** When the owner had not heard anything for a few weeks and they asked Fremantle if they could help they were told
(not to worry) Fremantle were still having discussions with various people in the group and they needed more time.
LIE: They were secretly building a case for abusive registration to put to Nominet.
Fremantle were offered the option to resolve everything during mediation and the owner kept all lines of communication open to try to resolve things, they chose not to. Fremantle could not prove a case and then lodged an
“exceptional circumstances” appeal so the the expert would ‘have to’ read more supposed proof.
Thie “exceptional circumstances” were that they
ACCUSED the owner of placing an ad in the Times newspaper online stating that this tv show could be entered via BritainsGotTalent.co.uk. The owner infuriated by this asked the Editor of the Times to investigate this which they did. This Times categorically stated that the owner
HAD NOT PLACE THE AD, however given data protection they could not identify who did!!
This ad was placed as a cynical attempt by someone to discredit the owner, by someone with a vested interest. Given that this page could only be found by entering an obscure string that only returned 7 replies instead of around 2 million for the term britains got talent it could only have been found, if you actually knew it was there beforehand.
LIE: Nevertheless this was proven to be yet another lie.
FACT: The Solicitor acting for Fremantle
NO LONGER works for the company.
** When asked why? – Fremantle stated the person in charge of and who built this important case for the company no longer worked for Fremantle because
he was a temp!!. I will leave you to believe what you chose on this however given that Fremantles entire trademark rests on this as far as I am concerned this is nonsense.
While the Expert seems to find for the owner throughout this document the decision in the main is made because the of revenue made through an advertising campaign.
** In spite of the fact that the expert had a
signed statement from the owner "as part of his submissions" stating that
“ NO MONEY” had been made via the site. The owner clearly explained that to do this would require to enter into legal agreements with advertisers for a period of 12 months and this clearly could not be done as the site to all intents and purpose was going to be SOLD. The ads that do appear on the site are to show the purchaser how a similar advertising campaign could be structured.
NO ADS CAN BE BOUGHT THROUGH THIS SITE.
This is damning for the Expert and for Nominet for had the Expert tried she would have found this! – and had she gone further she would have been presented by a Paypal page showing a cost of £000.00.
At this stage her decision falls apart
This is a travesty for Nominet, the expert is clearly wrong. The owner has the backing of many who point out Nominet’s historical decisions where large companies are involved and in 99% of cases the big company whether they have rights or not wins, this flies in the face of what Nominet is supposed to stand for.
The owner is waiting to hear an ‘informed opinion’ and is hopeful that the British sense of fair play will prevail and this decision will be overturned as it so obviously warranted.
This is an opportunity for all domainers to have their say and I would welcome any debate on this and the owner who is of good standing on this site would also.