Domain Manage

DRS double jeopardy??

Discussion in 'Domain Name Disputes' started by bb99, Jan 13, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. bb99 United Kingdom

    bb99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    38
    Mildly interesting DRS related article in today's Telegraph...

    As DRS gurus will know, the same party can't DRS another party over the same domain name twice. Here's what the good policy says:


    And yet here we have two DRSs.

    The first DRS was in 2005 and is here.

    It looks like that DRS mostly fell down because the complainant ("Framlingham College Enterprises Limited") did not adequately prove rights in the name. Oops :)


    Then in December 2008 we have another DRS on the same name. This time the complainant is "Framlingham College". Here it is. In this case, the complaint was successful.


    For the purposes of this rambling post, I will assume that the two complainants are the same. Is that a fair assumption? Well probably. If not, they are surely share the same ultimate control and should be treated as the same.


    So in what circumstances can an expert allow a 2nd DRS? The policy says:


    So it's interesting that the expert has allowed the second DRS without stating exactly why they have done so. Perhaps this was considered at length, but we have no idea of knowing so because the Summary documentation for the second DRS is silent on pretty much everything.

    So my point is this: I'd like to see more detail in all of the Summary judgement documents.... What do you lot think?
     
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Joined:
    1999
    Messages:
    Many
    Likes Received:
    Lots
     
  3. devolution

    devolution Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    753
    Likes Received:
    14
    TBH, this is kind of clear cut -- apart from any rules regarding subsequent cases...
    If it had been 'framlingham.co.uk' then I don't think a DRS would have been able to get the name, but it's clear it was an abusive registration in the spirit of old John Zucchini...
     
  4. bb99 United Kingdom

    bb99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    1,598
    Likes Received:
    38
    I agree, I think it does look very clearl cut and like the right decision was made in the end.

    I'm just puzzled as to why the expert hasn't clarified why he's allowed the second DRS and in general I tihnk the summary decisions should be more detailed.
     
  5. mofo

    mofo Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    307
    Likes Received:
    18
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page