Discussion in 'Domain Name Disputes' started by Whois-Search, Oct 6, 2009.
It seems the .com wanted the .co.uk (which was parked) = Summary Transfer
Haha that is quality
Friday tea time DRS case?
Can someone please clarify.
If a response is filed to a complaint, does that mean that the complainant has to use the expert option (£750) only?
The Complainant did have the only 3 TM's @ IPO Intellectual Property Office - Trade marks - find by mark text or image
I've obviously missed a big change here, the Summary Decision.
If there is no response to a case then the "expert" does not have to show any reason behind the decision, just a tick box to show they have decided, is that correct? To what lengths do they go to try to contact the respondant?
I think this particular case fits the "elevator rule" anyway i.e. can any rational observer reach the same conclusion in the time it takes to ride an elevator up to the top of a tall building. Clear cybersquatting, gives our industry a bad name (You can bet that there would be ZERO, nil, none, no, nada value at all to the expression "rotten tomatoes" if it weren't for the massive movie reviews site).
In my mind, if it really fits the "elevator rule" then the judgement could be as short as "Respondent loses" as onlookers know the argument behind that conclusion.
Maybe, I will never defend cybersquatting, but it seems dangerous to allow decisions without showing the reasoning behind. I had not seen the site at rottentomatoes.co.uk so cannot see if or how it was abusive. Now it is impossible for me to judge the merits of the decision. The decision could be absolutely spot on, but how can I tell without record of the reason?
If you start taking domains away from people because of value then it is a very dangerous path. There are many domains with zero value to a domain professional such as yourself, but others may wish to hold on to.
I've obviously missed this step change, and it has probably been debated at length, it just seems a retrograde step to me.
Check out the Nov '07 update here:
Looks abusive to me.
My point is not domains with zero value per se, it's domains whose value CLEARLY lies from the site they're squatting on because it's impossible that a rational observer would have thought to register that particular domain name failing the existence of the site/company that is creating the BRAND interest in the domain.
If there was a very famous company called "tomatoes" I would have said that the owner of tomatoes.co.uk had every right to maintain ownership of the domain name (as long as they weren't deliberately infringing on that famous company in some way) as it's a pure generic word, but "rotten tomatoes" has no value of any kind - the only reason anyone reading this thread mentally assigns even a penny of value to rottentomatoes.co.uk is because of the existence of the long-established site at rottentomatoes.com.
Any other rationalisation is a post-facto position that's subconsciously being influenced because of the HUGE popularity of the aforesaid rottentomatoes.com.
Separate names with a comma.