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.
I was wrong
On re-reading the article. I agree that even without the prior registration of AshWales.co.uk they would have won the case.
I admit that I miss-interpreted the statement ;
'ruled in the charity's favour, saying it had used the Ash Wales name "for a significant period of time" '
as using the domain name AshWales.co.uk before it expired as grounds; not they had used the words Ash Wales and continue to use it as AshWales.org.uk.
So I concede that I was wrong and there does not appear too much to worry about for domain catches in the judgement, as the prior registration was not a factor, although they have provided these words of wisdom about it.
"Whatever the price paid for the domain, the charity's failure to renew its registration was "not a licence to third parties, such as Mr Horth, knowingly to take advantage of the domain's historical connection with it", he added. "
Just an observation
I have now read the full DRS decision on the Nominet website (D00012937) and I still agree my original post was incorrect.
The decision is nothing to do with prior ownership of the expired domain.
In the version 1 and version 2 .uk debate, many have mentioned what might happen with 2 separate owners of .co.uk and .uk as regards to DRS.
Some have stated the DRS process will not change and "abusive" will still mean the same thing as it does now.
However, it may be the opportunity and occurrences of problems of same "equivalent" .co.uk and .uk domains and hence DRS cases and disputes may increase.
The line form the judgement that was telling on this subject for me is;
The judgement goes on to make it clearly an abusive registration in many ways and I agree with that judgement.
Also I wonder if the reason "the domain was held by its previous web designers" will be given in future .uk disputes, when the .co.uk owners say they were never sent the .uk notice, so they never acted.
I cannot see that working as a tactic for those that don't get the .uk but you can still understand and sympathise with their situation.
There is nothing Nominet can do about this wrong registrant situation but the case shows it does happen in real life.
I fully agree with this ruling. There was naivety on Mr Horth behalf and failure to understand good will associated with name and common laws that protect it.
Calling his website same mane as complainant’s makes very convincing of abusive use.
As I have done in one of my DRS cases, It can be argued that established goodwill is localised because nature and location of the business but you won’t get away with that by having location name in the domain.
This is no news to the drop catching or domain name industry is just useful to others who might be in similar situation and don’t know what to do.
If Mr Horth had used the domain for same thing but dome few things differently and acted in different way, he had good chance in keeping the domain name.
Forgetting to renew domain name and having established use does not create basis to have successful DRS claim.
The talk of prior use in this instance is the only reason they wanted the domain.
They didn't fall in love with the domain name "ash wales" they just wanted to use the domain for it's links, links gained by the previous owners use.
I can't believe they paid £4,000 for it, did they actually have to prove that? or just pull a figure out of the air.
Location and Generic DRS case
Another interesting DRS case
First the complainant must decide under which name its trading, Perthshire Caravans or Perth Caravans. From the article it’s clear that name is Perthshire Caravans. Because customers anecdotally user short version, does not add anything for the Expert.
Easy to say things like. “we been trading under the name since 1936”. Unless that is backed by clear evidence, it’s not a fact in the eyes of Expert.
Domain name is "generic". “location + widget”, it’s not impossible to win case like this but it should be taken in to account.
I have not read the case papers BTW.
Often what happens, people just file DRS complaint maybe with a lot of conviction but very few facts if any. Expert won’t do the research for Complainant, the Expert just going to look at the facts.
Because nobody does that now every day
Separate names with a comma.