Discussion in 'General Board' started by wizard, Sep 4, 2013.
Rightly concluded! Thanks for sharing!
another twist in domain catching
Another nail in the UK domain catching industry
I wonder if under the new registrar agreement, if passed, the large registrars would fight any claim for "abusive registration" if in the words of the judgement the name was used "for a significant period of time" and its lack of a trademark against the name at the time was "not determinative".
Even if they sold it on, could DRS action be taken by the expired registrant against the new original registrant for compensation or the return of the domain?
*edit* seems I was wrong - as of last year DRS can't be overturned in court.
No, utterly irrelevant to the domain catching industry. Not every news story has to be of the doom-and-gloom, sky-is-falling type!
The DRS decision is fair enough, it looks like. You don't have to have a registered trademark to have unregistered rights in a name that are valid at DRS, and "ash wales" has never been anything even remotely close to generic (despite the losing party reverse engineering an "explanation" for why they registered it).
domain catching industry risk?
Although I do not catch domain based on PR and backlinks, it looks like some do.
I would have thought that a period of ownership of a domain that is now expired, being grounds to get that domain back, would effect a certain
amount of catches, if the pervious owner found out that in future that the domain was worth something.
I believe it adds another risk to "domain catching uk domains", it is not doom and gloom but another factor.
Another nail was referring to the current situation with the Nominet new registrar agreement which if actioned, would change the UK drop catching industry from where it is now.
What makes this case different for me when reading the BBC account, is the fact that the previous owner owned a domain that expired and used that prior ownership to make their DRS case, which I have not seen before.
As far as I can see, the main grounds were not that the domain had previously been used, it was that the previous registrant is still trading under the term (albeit on an alternative extension) and therefore has rights in that term. The fact that they previously owned the domain just backs up their case, if they hadn't previously owned it and the respondent had just registered it and done the same, he still would've lost the domain.
It's like Apple deciding to just use the .com, dropping apple.co.uk by accident and the new owner setting up a shop selling windows pc's, a completely idiotic move.
Personally I don't think it makes any difference to dropcatching at all.
DRS04158 has a similar scenario relating to an expired name, and at least in part, the 'expert' found that this may have been a motivating element in the respondents decision to register it.
No idea what you are arguing but ash is a well known charity so it seems the correct decision.
Agree about the decision
I have never smoked and would argue that the right decision has been made.
The point I have tried to make is an observation, that if you take the point of a "prior registration" being a factor that won a DRS case. Then it is relevant to the risk of catching a UK domain, as the previous owner may have grounds to get it back.
The judgement does not apportion how much of each factor contributes to their decision, only that it is a factor.
Separate names with a comma.