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

ireland.co.uk, bella.co.uk & roadrunner.co.uk

Discussion in 'Domain Name Disputes' started by Whois-Search, Aug 4, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Whois-Search

    Whois-Search Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    1,967
    Likes Received:
    149
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

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

    GWing Retired Member

    Joined:
    May 2007
    Posts:
    290
    Likes Received:
    4
    The one regarding RoadRunner.co.uk is an absolute joke of a decision,

    nominet are absolutley scandalous.

    Where does this expert get off writing something like

    "If one swallow does not make a Summer, do12 domain names (out of 231) constitute a
    pattern?"

    I hope that Ostashko certainly appeals that one.
     
  4. retired_member16

    retired_member16 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    45
    I think that its only a matter of time before Nominet decide that non-use of a domain name is proof of an abusive registration.

    Perhaps this is a good thing?
     
  5. casinogb Italy

    casinogb Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2005
    Posts:
    43
    Likes Received:
    0
    the ireland.co.uk case was interesting, given that a price was agreed and money was sent as well.

    what would the seller have felt if the buyer managed to withdraw their funding.

    i'm on the side of the buyer for this one, if you agree on a deal, then it should be honoured especially as the money was sent.

    seems like a breach of contract and I wonder if the case will go to court for breach of contract.
     
  6. nnh United Kingdom

    nnh Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2006
    Posts:
    665
    Likes Received:
    10
    ireland.co.uk

    I'm on the side of the seller/nominet on that one. The buyer was a chancer and it nearly paid off!! They had no reasonable claim to it, if it had been the Irish Tourist board then that may have been different.

    Nearly getting something is not the same as getting it! If the 'tags' had been changed and it was simply the Nominet paperwork then maybe...FAIR...
     
  7. olebean United Kingdom

    olebean Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    2,217
    Likes Received:
    29
    Reverse Domain Hijacking?
     
  8. rob

    rob Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2005
    Posts:
    5,966
    Likes Received:
    119
    It could be the prelude to a court case.

    Likewise if buyer rings Nominet and mentions there is a dispute over the domain they would point them towards the DRS regardless.

    It does show though that the DRS is not there to solve disputes of that nature.

    I agree.
     
  9. Edwin

    Edwin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    9,851
    Likes Received:
    617
    I agree entirely. Once the deal is set in motion, with both parties in agreement and an Escrow transaction set up, that should be enough to confirm legally that there definitely IS a deal that has been made, at a price accepted by both parties, and therefore the seller should be compelled to carry it through to conclusion.
     
  10. GWing

    GWing Retired Member

    Joined:
    May 2007
    Posts:
    290
    Likes Received:
    4
    don't forget that under English law, you have 7 days cooling off period for any contract.
     
  11. tifosi United Kingdom

    tifosi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2004
    Posts:
    3,414
    Likes Received:
    55
    Especially where I believe the expert was using the incorrect interpretation of 'abusive pattern of registration'.

    Isn't this, or shouldn't this be, restricted to the repeated patterns of registrations that have resulted in the loss of domains as shown by the 3case pattern.

    The whole drs has bad ramifications for PPC and especially search boxes in parking, and in theory ANY, page containing adverts generated through search.

    S
     
  12. GWing

    GWing Retired Member

    Joined:
    May 2007
    Posts:
    290
    Likes Received:
    4
    Totally agree, if channel 4 racing had contacted Ostashko and said they wanted it back, I'm sure he's not daft enough to hold on to it, to the point of DRS.

    If channel 4 racing don't want the domain and have showed no interest in it, he isn't abusing their right not to want something. Obviously it's their right not to buy it, if they don't want to use it.

    This expert is a joke, and nominet are an absolute joke in this respect. I'd be off to court to challenge this decision. Nominet's terms and conditions are either unlawful, unfair or interpreted wrong by it's agents.

    All it needs is one guy to go to court and win, then nominet will have years of DRS cases to be challenged.

    GW
     
  13. nnh United Kingdom

    nnh Active Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2006
    Posts:
    665
    Likes Received:
    10
    Re: Ireland.co.uk

    There was no dispute! Because the buyer never had any claim to the domain name so Nominet could not pass it to them!!

    The buyer should have gone to court not Nominet. But in court they still had no legal claim to the name.

    I live in Scotland, if I offer my house to you and we agree a price that is a binding contract under Scottish law. There is no law that says if I offer a domain name to you and we agree a price that is a binding contact. It's not nice to back out but it's not a binding contract!!

    Even if I deposit an amount of money with a bank, solicitor or your aunty peggy, unless we exchange there is/was no sale.

    To be honest they don't even stand a chance in court they were just trying there luck. Better luck next time...
     
  14. domainking

    domainking Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2006
    Posts:
    497
    Likes Received:
    10
    ireland.co.uk

    A deal is not done until all transactions are carried out
    i i had ireland and agreed to sell you the name for $6000
    until the name is transfered over to you
    I have the right to pull away from the deal and thats what demont did he pulled away from the deal.

    Every day deals get crashed due to one side going cold and this looks like what happened if some one offers you say $6000 for a name and your 60% of going throught the deal and another person overs you $20.000 until the deal is signed and name is in your name then forget it.

    and for the person do go down the road of DRS and use unsavory tactics
    im happy that dermot won the case.

    and also it cost dermont a few $1000 DEFENDING THIS
    maybe the other side should pick up the costs of the lawyers tab for this.
    nice one dermot and all the best mate with it
     
  15. GWing

    GWing Retired Member

    Joined:
    May 2007
    Posts:
    290
    Likes Received:
    4
    I can't help that feeling if Ostashko had the expert that dealt with the "bella.co.uk" case he would have been seccesful in defending the name.

    Least the expert "Anthony Gold" understand the definition of generic.
     
  16. invincible

    invincible Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    101
    This isn't, and never has been, the case. A pattern can be a pattern of anything. It isn't restricted to a pattern of previous DRS losses.

    Part 3(c)(iii) of the DRS policy was amended after the first DRS consultation in 2004. Prior to that consultation it read "In combination with other circumstances indicating that the Domain Name in dispute is an Abusive Registration, the Complainant can demonstrate that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of registrations where the Respondent is the registrant of domain names (under .uk or otherwise) which correspond to well known names or trade marks in which the Respondent has no apparent rights, and the Domain Name is part of that pattern". After the 2004 DRS consultation the part that I have underlined was removed. That change facilitated the loss of alternate.co.uk (DRS 02921) by the Respondent (who didn't actually respond, but even so!).

    I, and others, think that the "pattern" hurdle should go back to being an "in combination with other circumstances" hurdle rather than a standalone one in its own right. That way Registrants cannot loose a domain name based on falling at this hurdle alone.

    I've read many complaints where a Complainant has speculated about what a Visitor to a disputed domain name displaying PPC might do. Many go something like "A visitor to the offending web site may visit the domain name, thinking that the domain name was associated with the Complainant, and then they might click on {some link} or type in {some term} into the search box which would return a list of advertising links that, if clicked on, would take the visitor to web sites belonging to the Complainants competitors." I often wonder how extreme a "might do" could become. What if the disputed domain name merely resolved to a web site solely displaying a single search box that, if searched via, would return PPC advertising for the searched term? Would this be abusive because a visitor might decide to use that search box to search for something that a Complainant may have a claim on? Couldn't a visitor legitimately decide to search for anything in that search box, particularly if the domain name has multiple connotations? What if the search box returned standard, non PPC, Google results? Abusive? As tifosi notes, couldn't any search from a disputed domain name be dressed up to be abusive based on "might do's"?
     
  17. invincible

    invincible Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    101
    It's all very well for you to say this as a seller but turn it around to where you become the buyer and I am not so sure you'd feel the same.

    Imagine your domain name purchasing budget for this month is £20,000. A seller advertises a domain name for sale and you agree by email to purchase it for £15,000. Later on you see another domain name for sale. Unfortunately that domain name eventually sells for more than your remaining £5,000 but less than your original budget of £20,000. You have to pass on the second domain name because you've already commited to buying the first for £15,000. Shortly after this, the seller of the first domain name change his/her mind. Not only have you lost the first domain name but you've also lost the second because when that was for sale you didn't have enough in your budget. Tough luck you may say but I think that it is unprofessional to change your mind in this way. It is quite conceivable that domain purchasers are given budgets so for sellers to give buyers the runaround once a sale has been agreed isn't responsible or good business.

    I've experienced someone changing their mind on a sale. In hindsight I am actually quite pleased that I didn't purchase the domain name but at the time I was annoyed. Reputation is very important in this industry. If you mess a buyer about, they'll probably tell others. Don't be surprised when some people decide not to do business with you as a result.
     
  18. domainking

    domainking Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2006
    Posts:
    497
    Likes Received:
    10
    Hi Invicable thats why its always best not to count your eggs until they are in your basket.

    It all boiles down to trying to get the deal done asap until then its a case of tender hooks.

    I personally if i have done a deal would stick to it but there is always both sides to a deal. and once again a deal not a deal until both parties have played there part in the tranfer.

    if someone had offered you say £20.000 on the name would you not change your mind lol
     
  19. retired_member11

    retired_member11 Retired Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    972
    Likes Received:
    4
    ...but Edwin, the DRS Policy had no relevance to the ireland.co.uk circumstances. It was one for the law to decide.
     
  20. retired_member16

    retired_member16 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    3,577
    Likes Received:
    45
    That is known in the business as tough bollocks.

    If I, or anyone else agree to sell something to A, then a week later get a better offer from B, or even that C pops up and tells me a better way to make money from my domain, well, if A has not passed over any notes, then A can kiss my arse.

    -or am I being out of order?
     
  21. bb99 United Kingdom

    bb99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    1,614
    Likes Received:
    38
    Ignoring the moral issue here, my idiot's guide to law disagrees with this and what's been posted above. Specifically:

    - Z offers £10k to X for a domain name
    - X accepts the offer

    Let's say it's done by email. This is offer & acceptance = contract. It may not be written down, there may not be signatures, but still isn't this a legally binding contract?

    So if one party then pulls out there is legal remedy available to the other party should they wish to take it.

    That's how I was taught it anyway.

    Can someone with a legal brain clarify this point please?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.