I'm not sure if discussion of this has occured on here prior to me posting about it now. I've noticed that a previous thread relating to the original decision (which went in favour of the Respondent, thus no domain name transfer), has been closed. However given that there has been a subsequent appeal by the Complainant, and that appeal has been published on the Nominet web site, I cannot currently think why this shouldn't be discussed. I have, however, noted that despite the appeal decision date being 07/01/2011 the domain name is still registered to the Respondent. It is, therefore, possible that further legal action may be ongoing. I don't appear to be able to link directly to a decision anymore so anyone interested should visit http://www.nic.uk/disputes/drs/decisions/decisionssearch/ and look for case #8634. The appeal panel decided that the term "emirates" was not a natural term that someone might actually use when refering to "travel to the UAE" (United Arab Emirates) in the same way that they might say they are going to Argentina. They felt it was far more likely for someone to refer to a city, such as Dubai. If referring to the country, they felt they'd use "UAE" or "the Emirates" rather than just "emirates". Given I've been three times, I'd personally agree with that. Sorry Michael. The appeal panel also drew distrinction between "Emirates", "emirate" and "the Emirates" and felt that "Emirates" had acquired very strong secondary meaning. They were also suspicious of Respondents ascertain that at the time of registering "emirates.co.uk" in 2002, given his interest in the travel sector, he apparently was unware of the Complainant. Given they didn't believe the Respondent, they therefore inferred from this that he very probably designed his use of emirates.co.uk in light of his actual awareness of the Complainant. Unfortunately, again, regardless of whether it is actually true that the Respondent really wasn't aware of Emirates (the airline) at the time of registering the emirates.co.uk domain name, I also find it a stretch to believe that he wasn't. If it had been me, and I really hadn't been aware of Emirates the airline, I'm not sure I would have actually stated that in my DRS response. Although it could really be true, I think it's just too hard a pill for an Expert to swallow. By stating something that seems unlikely, regardless of whether it is true, in my opinion it potentially casts doubt on the legitimacy of the rest of the Response. So, again, sorry Michael. The appeal panel didn't give any weight to the delay in the Complainant filing a complaint. There's not really any provision in the DRS for this. The Appeal Panel decided that the domain name registration to the Respondent is abusive and ordered the transfer to the Respondent. At some point, I imagine, we'll see that occur. Michael has therefore, now made it to the 3 case Respondent table page.