Whilst conducting a review of recent DRS decisions on Nominet's I noticed that a DRS for barclays.org.uk had been afforded a "full decision". I've seen a high number of bank related DRS and in recent times they usually go hand in hand with a "summary decision". Afterall why would anyone bother to defend the usually undefendable? Far better to hand the names over earlier, if possible, I'd have thought. So, given this was a full decision, I decided to have a read. Reading the decision, the first thing I noticed was the procedural history. This one actually went to mediation! Before reading this far it had crossed my mind that Barclays might have paid for a full decision to make a point and therefore would have refused mediation. This case was allocated between 1 and 2 weeks (it's not clear because two dates are listed for mediation started). Things that stood out to me: 1. Complainant alleged that the domain name displayed a notice offering it for sale for £750,000. 2. Complainant stated that their solicitor wrote to the Respondent twice and received a reply stating he would not transfer the domain name [for free] but would be willing to sell it [to Complainant]. 3. Respondent, in his Response to the complaint, stated he was trying to set himself up as a domain name dealer and had purchased the domain name on the open market. He had also purchased names, including "bmw.org.uk", "toyota.org.uk" and "land-rover.me.uk". 4. Respondent understands that the Complainant wants the domain name but doesn't understand why the Complainant will not discuss buying it from him. 5. Respondent stated that he bought the domain name on the open market with no restrictions. It was initially set up with email forwarding but this was soon switched off because he was constantly getting emails from Barclays Bank customers. 6. A few years earlier the Respondent had attempted to sell the domain name on ebay and the Complainant had managed to get the auction pulled. 7. Respondent stated that at the time of (6) he spoke with Nominet and was informed that he was within his rights to do what he wanted with the domain name and at whatever price as long as he was not pretending to be anyone else. 8. Respondent listed 10 generic domain name sales to justify his reasoning about trying to sell barclays.org.uk. 9. Respondent has been the Registrant of the domain name for 8 years but claims he cannot be held responsible for the Respondent not doing their job properly by not registering it before he did. He will sell it but will not be bullied into giving it away. 10. Respondent has, without success, requested Complainant to identify someone at BARCLAYS who can make a purchasing decision but they haven't. So it is unsurprising that BARCLAYS ["The Complainant"] succeeded in getting judgement in their favour. The Expert felt that the Respondent had failed to appreciate the constraints within which he must operate in connection with a domain name incorporating the name of a third party. I felt that this decision echoed so many of the things that anyone newly getting into trading in domain names should be aware of. One obviously cannot register a famous brandname, and then offer to sell it back to the brand owner at an inflated price without consequence; something this Respondent appeared to be unware of.