Enjoy unlimited access to all forum features for FREE! Optional upgrade available for extra perks.

Change of status for the domain name 3.org.uk

Discussion in 'Domain Name Disputes' started by atlas, Mar 3, 2011.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. atlas Canada

    atlas Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2007
    Posts:
    1,747
    Likes Received:
    101
    from: http://www.nominet.org.uk/news/latest?contentId=8238
     
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Joined:
    1999
    Messages:
    Many
    Likes Received:
    Lots
    IWA Meetup
     
  3. invincible

    invincible Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    101
    Thanks for posting this. :) There is a knock-on effect of this which isn't mentioned. The applicant, Scott Jones, who's IP rights for 3.org.uk were objected to, also applied for 3.co.uk using the same trademark. However 3.co.uk, unlike 3.org.uk, had two applicants and this meant that 3.co.uk would have been sent to auction. Now that Scott Jones' applications have been determined invalid, Palmerston Limited (i.e. "Three" the mobile phone company), became the sole applicant for 3.co.uk and have therefore now obtained it under the sunrise period. This is the application for 3.org.uk by Scott Jones.
     
    • Like Like x 1
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2011
  4. anthony United Kingdom

    anthony Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2006
    Posts:
    1,775
    Likes Received:
    37
    What exactly was the objection though?
     
  5. invincible

    invincible Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    101
    I'm not sure therefore I can only speculate. Perhaps the trademark for "3native" was subsequently considered not to be similar enough to the mark "3" to be awarded the domain name 3.org.uk, and also to be moved onto the auction phase for 3.co.uk.

    It would have been interesting if 3.co.uk had made it to auction because "Three" would definitely not have wanted any other party to obtain it. I cannot imagine another party being able to outbid them either so I question why anyone else, other than them, would bother to apply for 3.co.uk in the first place (because there was slim to no chance of "Three" not realising that the domain name was going to be made available).
     
  6. jwm United Kingdom

    jwm Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    391
    Likes Received:
    5
    Because 3 might have just paid you to go away rather than let you ramp the sales price on them during an auction? Or perhaps another mobile operator would have been interested in acquiring your rights to the auction.

    All speculation on my part obviously
     
  7. wb

    wb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2009
    Posts:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    47
    Scott has a lot of domains worth serious money, and Three wouldn't know what he was prepared to bid up to. If it was going to auction perhaps Three would have wanted to offer Scott an amount instead to guarantee they won it and potentially save themselves money in the process. It makes commercial sense but we will never know now though.

    Edit: Beaten to it by jwm :)
     
  8. invincible

    invincible Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    101
    :) I wondered about the pay off idea but if they could pay off their opponent, why wouldn't they just decide to bid the same amount and win the auction? The Nominet Trust rather than their opponent would get the money. If another person actually won 3.co.uk at auction because Three didn't bid enough then they'd never make back what they paid for the domain name by using it in any way/shape/form and the only company that would potentially want to buy it would be "Three". There are no other suitors.

    I don't think any other mobile operator would potentially infringe upon the rights of another. They all need to work together for interoperability and therefore maintain good relationships.
     
  9. invincible

    invincible Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    101
    Having domain names that are potentially worth "serious money" doesn't necessarily translate to having cash in the bank and therefore the ability to bid on a domain name that has a single suitor. That suitor was also the only other participant in the auction. I don't know what form the auctions take. Are they sealed bids or are they conventional auctions? Do you have to provide proof of funds before you can bid?
     
  10. doodlebug United Kingdom

    doodlebug Retired Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2007
    Posts:
    5,166
    Likes Received:
    49
    Putting the mobile network aside, I would imagine that 3.co.uk would be worth 100k anyway and 3.org.uk about 10k to 20k

    I don't undertand Nominet doing auctions if they're suppose be a non for profit organisation,I would say xx,xxx for a domain which even at standard Nominet rates would only cost £80 + vat,that is a serious profit :shock:
     
  11. wb

    wb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2009
    Posts:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    47
    An auction leaves uncertainty regarding how much the other party is prepared to pay. If I was in the auction, I would want them to make me an offer for a 'pay off' rather than telling them how much I would be prepared to bid. For that reason, it's not possible for them to just bid 'the same amount' to win the auction as they wouldn't know how much I would bid up to. They may be prepared to pay up to £100k at auction considering that is what they allegedly paid for 'three.co.uk', so a pay off could cost them considerably less for a guaranteed win.

    Regardless of cash in the bank, it would probably give the impression to the other bidder that he is a serious buyer.

    Good point about the auction format though, it's something which I haven't looked into.
     
  12. invincible

    invincible Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    101
    3.co.uk - little traffic value without infringing TM's. No resale value except to "Three" but given they were likely to be its only owner ever, and it wouldn't ever be sold off by itself (it's part of the business), again no value because they already have it. If, in a parallel world, after some freak occurrence, someone other than "Three" obtained the domain name then it's worth what they are prepared to pay to get it off you. In some cases that might actual be zero.

    When there's more than one party interested in a domain name under the sunrise, how else do you propose they pick a registrant in the fairest possible way?
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2011
  13. invincible

    invincible Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    101
    I'm not sure the auction format was ever published. :) I understand your point about the pay off to gain certainty. To some extent it is still a punt because they could just decide to bid whatever is necessary rather than give you anything because money is no object. However it would make business sense to try to buy the other bidder off, I suppose. Unfortunately on this occasion they managed to knock the other bidder out by appealing against the validity of their TM rights.
     
  14. wb

    wb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2009
    Posts:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    47
    A shame for Scott, but by any means it has to be said that it was a very clever move by Palmerston to secure '3'. The registered trademark was for '3' without any additional words so it's a shame for Scott, but will be interesting to find out what they did exactly to prove the application was invalid.
     
  15. invincible

    invincible Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    101
    It wouldn't surprise me if "Three" (UK) rebrand as "3" at some point in the future, just like Five/5/Channel 5 have done a number of times along with new logos. This might depend on whether they want to remain consistent with the foreign "three" brands.

    Scott will be able to tell us, if he wishes, about why his TM was deemed valid and then subsequently invalid. Maybe he'll also confirm or deny whether he had any contact with "Three" or their agents? :)
     
  16. anthony United Kingdom

    anthony Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2006
    Posts:
    1,775
    Likes Received:
    37
    Nominets' Terms & Conditions expressly state that: "..we cannot investigate what rights you have to register or use the domain name.."
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2011
  17. invincible

    invincible Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    101
    If you use the forum quote method to quote external sources, when I press reply and quote your post those external sources disappear (as above). Therefore it might be better it you italicise and use "" quote marks instead. :)

    Did you mean to post just that? The standard T&Cs aren't the rules of the two and one character release sunrise. The sunrise is based on trademark rights and there is a criteria for what is considered valid and invalid.
     
  18. doodlebug United Kingdom

    doodlebug Retired Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2007
    Posts:
    5,166
    Likes Received:
    49
    Surely they can pick a company out of just 2 based on merit and IPO rights.

    And as for 3.co.uk being worthless to anyone other than the mobile network then that's silly, any 2 character .co.uk would go for 10k+ so a single one would definitely go for a nice amount, what do think would happen if eg 5.co.uk was offered on here ?
     
  19. invincible

    invincible Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    101
    An auction is probably the fairest way of picking from multiple qualifying candidates. The candidate prepared to pay the most secures the domain name. This is why auctions are used the world over.

    I've seen quite good three letter domain names sell on domainlore for low prices. I also don't believe, once one gets down to 3 characters or less, that shorter always means more valuable. Not that many UK business can be abbreviated with one or two letters and most won't have any traffic. So their value is speculative.

    My opinion about 3.co.uk being worthless to anyone other than the mobile network is, I feel, relevant because nobody other than the mobile network "Three" was ever likely to become its registrant. They are also never going to sell it because it is integral to their business. Anyone else who might ever have acquired it would probably only have made money by selling it to "Three", or selling their seat in the auction I suppose.

    5.co.uk is different because Channel 5 applied but their application has been deemed invalid. They also don't own five.co.uk but have recently rebranded as 5/Channel 5. It appears that another applicant has applied for 5.co.uk and their application is pending validation. Given that Channel 5 applied, but their application was deemed invalid, there is obviously money to be made by someone else who successfully acquires this domain name and potentially selling it to Channel 5.

    Reversing things, for a moment, if you knew that neither the mobile network "Three" nor "Channel 5" were ever going to be interested in paying you for 3.co.uk or 5.co.uk then how much would you be prepared to pay for either? I ask this because it's just as arbitrary, at least to me, as the chance of "Three" not obtaining "3.co.uk" in the sunrise.
     
    Last edited: Mar 8, 2011
  20. anthony United Kingdom

    anthony Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2006
    Posts:
    1,775
    Likes Received:
    37
    Sorry, but Sunrise domain names will all be registered to the same set of T&Cs as every other domain name managed by Nominet, so I stand by the fact that Nominet retain no powers to investigate rights. On re-reading the processes involved, this seems to be clear by the facts that:

    1- The 'rights' are being determined externally by CMS Cameron McKenna.
    2- The auctions will being managed externally by NFPA.
    3- All profits will go to the Nominet Trust.

    Are you suggesting that Nominet do retain a power to investigate rights, or maybe that their T&Cs do not apply here?
     
  21. invincible

    invincible Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    101
    That's once the domain name has actually been registered.

    Are you able to quote anything from within this particular thread where you feel I might have suggested that "Nominet do retain a power to investigate rights, or maybe their T&Cs do not apply here"?

    I get the impression that you might be attempting to steer the topic of this thread onto something else, perhaps related to a problem or dispute you may have had in the past with Nominet. I get that impression because you don't appear to be adding anything directly relevant to the actual topic being discussed, and I also clicked on the URLs in your signature. If I've misjudged you, then I apologise. However if I am right, I think it would be easier if you just came out and said whatever it is you want to say relating to whatever it is within a separate thread so it can stand independently of this one. :)
     
    Last edited: Mar 9, 2011
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.