Discussion in 'Domain Name Disputes' started by Beasty, Jan 9, 2008.
I wish you lot would sum it up instead of us having to open it all the time haha what was the complaint, what was the resolution, who were the parties, make your post interesting. :mrgreen: I should have regged lazysod.co.uk
I'd advocate reading all 12 pages Lee - but if you feel you can't then jump to the first paragraph of the conclusion on page 12.
Why, after all these years, is it still necessary to have this type of poor judgement pointed out only at the appeal stage? If this were to have been conducted or scrutinised in a legal arena, the expert's decision (and the procedure allowing for it) might well be considered seriously flawed and unfair!
Thought they slapped the complainant fairly, and correctly subtly told the respondant off.
One thing I noted was their conclusions on knowledge of a trademark/copyright related to a domain name, even when registering the domain (as a generic), doesn't (rightly IMO) constitute abuse, especially if the domain is truly generic (e.g single common word) and has both multiple uses, and multiple users with common rights (including the right of the registrant to pursue use within policy/procedure).
In the current global media marketplace it would be hard not to have a general wide depth of product/company knowldege, even if subliminal, and the decision to register(or not) a domain shouldn't necesarily rely on the predetermination of just how many others are using the term, or would want to us it. In my experience 'domain envy' is an increasing occurance, especially in generic domain circles, and will inevitably lead to more DRS 'attempts' like this.
Forget domain envy, I just sell other domainers domains and make them a profit :mrgreen: Thanks I'll read it. I had one drs and apart from me landing with a bump, did quite well, followed the rules, hate rules but stretched them and had a good day out. It's an experience, more should go through it.
24th July 2006, so MC were just fishing for a catch and admittance rather than any real offer? that's entrapment, does that count in the uk? So save me looking, did 3web get to keep it? or did mc win? just looked, a domainer win, good. a whole lot of solitor words to attain a result. I did read it, but entrapment, they didnt deserve it.
I prefer dealing with directors who knows what business they're in, spoke to one, his reply, that's cheap, go on then... others just ignore you which dents the profits a bit haha education education education
Once again it comes back to whether the name is solely referrable to the complainant. Indeed, if a rights holder chooses a generic trading name (in light of alot of generic domain name registrations) then he/she accepts that confusion in trade is likely. That is not to say another can take unfair advantage it just means he/she is unlikely to be able to monopolise such a name even though the name had gained worldwide fame.
Personally I think domain name holders have built a sold defence by chasing 'generic domain names' to sell on. For example when a land rush occurs traders pile in and most generic names are taken within hours.... they are registered because many will want to use them in business AND TM law prohibits TM's in names that others may well want to use.
Recommend:- Abolish text only trade marks unless it is very unique (toysrus) i.e. unlikely to be grabbed in a land rush or gained substantial good will in the specific TM class.
The other important argument can work for and against:-
The domain trader registers a name, a world famous name is then born, the domain trader does not formally protects its 'right to sell' thru a TM application.......IF the world famous name was to monopolise the name then the domain trader would only gain money if he/she sold to the world famous name.....if the world famous name said no the domain trader's name would be worthless......reverse domain name blocking!
I agree with everything you say Lee, apart from the last paragraph.
To take it to a market where you are the expert, if you own a piece of land that suddenly becomes valuable because a third party (and only that third party) needs it, are you compelled to give it away? No, you can either hold it or negotiate the best terms available with that party.
Something that is not an infringement when it starts does not suddenly become an infringement just because someone else has developed some rights - that's both the general position in law and also under the DRS (e.g. para 8.14 in verbatim appeal).
Yes beasty...my last para wasn't saying it was fact....I, however, have not seen any case law specifically in relation to rights in domain names where a later rights holder is claiming unequivocal rights to the develop its rights with no respect to domain names that are the same as that right and registered prior to their rights development.
Personally i think domain name owners are collectively enormous 'rights holders' and those collective little rights need to be protected....currently they are not adequately protected.....little rights have little money and therefore little respect from 'the system'.
The story just made Out-law.com:
Separate names with a comma.