Enjoy unlimited access to all forum features for FREE! Optional upgrade available for extra perks.

jokers.co.uk DRS 05054

Discussion in 'Domain Name Disputes' started by Whois-Search, Jan 4, 2008.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Whois-Search

    Whois-Search Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    1,967
    Likes Received:
    149
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Joined:
    1999
    Messages:
    Many
    Likes Received:
    Lots
    IWA Meetup
     
  3. Jeewhizz

    Jeewhizz Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2006
    Posts:
    1,174
    Likes Received:
    18
    Ouch :( Are you going to appeal?
     
  4. denchomsky United Kingdom

    denchomsky Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2005
    Posts:
    1,782
    Likes Received:
    37
    What a Joke!......................Sorry I couldn't resist;)
     
  5. mally United Kingdom

    mally Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    2,276
    Likes Received:
    23
    terrible decision. Jokers could be used for a load of things
     
  6. bb99 United Kingdom

    bb99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    1,614
    Likes Received:
    38
    How come it's on that site before it's on the Nominet website? Haven't read it yet though - just starting now...
     
  7. landlord

    landlord Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2007
    Posts:
    124
    Likes Received:
    2
    Unfortunately

    Emotions may have got the better of FC....and the complainant used this to take the GENERIC domain name. Very sad indeed and remember registrants don't get second chances to act proper with their domain names.....

    Did the complainant complain against the use before submitting the complaint? If no then poor show that FC wasn't given an opportunity to correct any issues.

    Beasty, is their any case law regarding true generic domain names that have considered to have taking unfair advatange of complainants rights? what is the courts remedy...damages or transfer? citi group, tescos, marks and spencers, phones4u are not really generic

    Lee
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2008
  8. retired_member3

    retired_member3 Retired Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2007
    Posts:
    999
    Likes Received:
    10
    What a heap of b******s. Ok the site shouldn't of been routing affiliate traffic back to the complainants site but what gives them the right to the domain name??? Worst case the domain should be deleted. It's not like it's a typo???

    I especially liked colins choice of web forwarding to competitors :mrgreen:
     
  9. FC Domains

    FC Domains Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    1,063
    Likes Received:
    13
    This is far more bizarre than it looks.
    For a start I was not the respondant and am currently 'having words' with Nominet, which is why it isn't on their site.
     
  10. retired_member26

    retired_member26 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 2004
    Posts:
    748
    Likes Received:
    12
    Complainant's Rights

    I have not read such a "biased" and "lame" explanation in my life regarding the stuff under "complainant's rights" section.

    This is disgusting!

    TurNIC
     
  11. laura

    laura Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    1,672
    Likes Received:
    8
    Mad ????????????

    Regards,

    Laura
     
  12. mojoco United Kingdom

    mojoco Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    1,509
    Likes Received:
    52
    maybe thats why the nameservers are set as: :p

    Name servers:
    gaea.myth.co.uk
    uranus.myth.co.uk
     
  13. landlord

    landlord Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2007
    Posts:
    124
    Likes Received:
    2
    bizarre

    I did think it was bizarre as I know FC runs a very amicable buying/selling web page...merely buying and selling generic domain names.

    Was the name hijacked or was the respondent the previous owner?

    Personally I think 'transfer' as a remedy is unlwaful unless the complainant has unequivocal rights but I have said this time and time again and it gets no-where......deletion would certainly be the correct remedy.

    Contractual issues rarely go to court nowadays cause the cost are frankly enormous.....this is where the system fails the small rights holders....no new laws are set cause everyone settles out of court. For example, A disputed invoice of say 30k is likely to be settled out of court cause legal fees could amount to near on that and courts are reluctnant to issue full costs even if you win.

    The system is wrong....apart from the small claims court but given the nature of domain names it is likely that any case is referred to the high court

    Alas dispute resolution is certainly the route BUT a DRS cannot be based on unknown english law....Nominet should apply for a judicial review as I can't see how they can apply their contractual rights in the present climate....the longer they leave it the worse it will get
     
    Last edited: Jan 4, 2008
  14. FC Domains

    FC Domains Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    1,063
    Likes Received:
    13
    Having been informed of the publication of the DRS findings, I contacted Nominent and then wrote to them as follows on 17th December.
    I will not comment further until Nominet formally reply. (They seem to be having problems, because there are no rules governing what happens when they don't follow their own rules.)

    I do wish to point out again that I had no part in the DRS process, or the use that the domain was put to. I go out of my way to maintain my reputation as a fair and professional domain trader.
     
  15. landlord

    landlord Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2007
    Posts:
    124
    Likes Received:
    2
    Own written rules

    Don't hold any hope they dont follow their own written rules....

    They think an @ sign is a comma
     
  16. bb99 United Kingdom

    bb99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    1,614
    Likes Received:
    38
    Colin - fascinating, thanks for setting the record straight.

    Amazing that the decision doesn't pick up on the fact that the respondent isn't the registrant.

    I think Nominet have really dropped a bollock in terms of their administration here :mrgreen:
     
  17. retired_member3

    retired_member3 Retired Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2007
    Posts:
    999
    Likes Received:
    10
    lol classic egg on face! Well done nominet. UK domaining wouldn't be nearly as entertaining if you were competent!

    I'm still waiting on replies about deleting.co.uk!
     
  18. bb99 United Kingdom

    bb99 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    1,614
    Likes Received:
    38
    I was telling someone about this (general situation) yesterday and they couldn't believe it.

    It hasn't re-appeared on the Nominet website so I assume it's still ongoing....
     
  19. Ghislaine

    Ghislaine New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2008
    Posts:
    1
    Likes Received:
    0
    Any update on the Jokers situation?

    What is the situation now? Have Nominet accepted that you are NOT the Registrant? And how come the expert thought you were the Respondent? He must have known you weren't because he mentioned you by name, saying that you had sold the site to Baker in 2004, yet he still put your name against Respondent at the top of the document .... very careless ....:rolleyes:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.