Domain Manage

maestro.co.uk - No Response yet Complaint Denied!

Discussion in 'Domain Name Disputes' started by Beasty, Oct 14, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Beasty

    Beasty Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2006
    Posts:
    595
    Likes Received:
    8
    If the Nominet Board needed another reason to pull back from the proposed Default Transfer idea - here is a well reasoned case where a big corporate's Complaint for a generic domain failed despite no Response being filed. Would the correspondence and evidence examined in this case have even seen the light of day if the current plan goes through?

    http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/25376_maestro.pdf

    That said, you should always Respond - especially with a good domain like this! :p
     
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Joined:
    1999
    Messages:
    Many
    Likes Received:
    Lots
     
  3. grandin United Kingdom

    grandin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2006
    Posts:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    10
    Great job

    I would say the expert has truly applied the DRS as intended. Great job and should be respected for giving an in depth account of the general issues facing IP rights

    Lee
     
  4. sneezycheese

    sneezycheese Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2005
    Posts:
    550
    Likes Received:
    15
    ...Agreed - In particular:

    Simple rules require simple application! - So Mrs. E.T. just K.I.S.S. and make up - on second thoughts, please don't make it up. ;):twisted::mrgreen:

    Regards,

    Sneezy.
     
  5. retired_member9

    retired_member9 Retired Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2005
    Posts:
    519
    Likes Received:
    8
    hmm... there IS a response =)
     
  6. invincible

    invincible Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    81
    There is but it wasn't made by the Respondent as part of the DRS process. The Complainant submitted two letters that the Respondent had sent to them, in reply to their own correspondence. See section 4.1 of the decision. The Expert decided to consider these letters as "a response". This is something to be mindful of when you enter into correspondence with another party in relation to a domain name because whatever you say could end up being used in the same way as this, should you be subject to a DRS.
     
  7. grandin United Kingdom

    grandin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2006
    Posts:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    10
    failure to respond

    Whilst a default transfer would have changed the decision on this case I cannot see it being a bad thing. I am sure based on the recent letters sent by the respondent to the complaintnant the respondent was contactable but decided not to the respond to the complaint via the DRS...IF the respondent was sent a letter recorded delivery from Nominet stating that he must respond to keep the domain name AND the recorded slip showed that he signed for the letter then I think a default transfer would have been fair.

    Lee
     
  8. Beasty

    Beasty Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2006
    Posts:
    595
    Likes Received:
    8
    Why? Do you seriously think it would have been fair for a corporate who could not prove their case, to be granted the transfer of the domain?
    Do you not think that the Complainant should be obliged to bear the burden of proving their case, in what is supposed to be a simple system that does not require legal advice.

    If you want default judgment, go to Court if you don't think you are going to get a response. That is what the system is there for - and no one who received a court claim form could suggest they did not know they should either take advice or respond to it. The same can not be said of a DRS Complaint - which you and I recognise Lee, but 99% of people would not have a clue about.

    I have to say that I am a bit confused Lee. You are the one who favours challenging the Registration Contract/DRS on the basis that they require registrants to enter into an overly complex legal relationship with Nominet - yet you also think that making that contract even more complex and providing an even "rougher" justice than the current DRS is a good idea. There seems to be a conflict there - and I wonder whether your support of it arises from either wanting to then complain about it to the authorities and/or because you think you can take advantage of the proposed system. If it is neither of those, perhaps you could explain your support of it to me? :confused:
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2007
  9. Beasty

    Beasty Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2006
    Posts:
    595
    Likes Received:
    8
    Yes, spot on invincible. So it is not a Response - it was part of the Complaint that was (quite rightly) taken to provide an outline of the Respondent's position. Pretty good luck for the Registrant and a pretty bad choice (with the benefit of hindsight) for the Complainant that they provided the Expert with the arguments that resulted in the rejection of their claim.

    Supporters of a halfway house mini-complaint and response should note that if such a system were working in this case then no such evidence would have seen the light of day. Likewise with the current proposal - since no one would have had to read it and decide the case on its merits.
     
  10. grandin United Kingdom

    grandin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2006
    Posts:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    10
    what i think

    What I think is that Nominet have a legal duty not to sell dodgy domain names whether for profit or other wise BUT given that they and Government stakeholders seem to think it is an impossible task to pre vet domain names by linking the patent office, companies house and domain name registration then the DRS default transfer is a good way to limit any liability i.e. I have proof that registrants truely think they have rights when they do not due to lack of education. The required level of education is that of an IP lawyer....it is also ridiculous that Nominet do not recommend that the registrant take legal advice prior to contracting let alone making it a requirement.

    Either way the whole process stinks.....at least we have a good account by this maestro expert....well done expert you are clearly a maestro!

    Lee
     
  11. invincible

    invincible Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    4,108
    Likes Received:
    81
  12. grandin United Kingdom

    grandin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2006
    Posts:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    10
    appeal pending

    My understanding is that it should state 'Appeal Pending' if an Appeal is pending....this maybe a typo error either way..

    I hope it does go to appeal so more of the same can be given thus re-affirming what is natural common sense

    Lee
     
  13. Beasty

    Beasty Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2006
    Posts:
    595
    Likes Received:
    8
    It does normally say that Lee, normally in bold type, so it is a bit funny. However I'd hazard a guess that the complainant is giving the system a second roll of the dice.

    Does anyone know the registrant - Mark Adams?
     
  14. grantw United Kingdom

    grantw Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    4,649
    Likes Received:
    82

    <edit> ...snip :)


    Grant
     
  15. keys United Kingdom

    keys Well-Known Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2004
    Posts:
    1,308
    Likes Received:
    19
    He's a forum member and has sold several names here, but not sure how often he looks in. We used to deal with him regularly.
     
  16. grandin United Kingdom

    grandin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2006
    Posts:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    10
    a bit late!

    It does amaze me how such a big corporate can THINK it can buldoze its way to a prime domain name. The big issue is around a simple fact......

    Nominet and stakeholders have been observing registrants trading domain names for profit for years and as such it is not abusive BUT it could have been very different if the first ever contract outlawed trading.....now its too late and rights holders have to accept a certain way of doing business i.e. before announcing any new product secure your domain name!!

    Beasty, have you gone through the one in a million case to see if the judge made any remarks specifically about selling domain names at a profit.

    Lee
     
  17. Nikki

    Nikki Member

    Joined:
    May 2007
    Posts:
    34
    Likes Received:
    1
    Maybe the expert try to avoid the default.

    Maybe the in house lawyer of Maestro feels like having a holiday or changing a job

    Maybe the decision is honest with the policy

    Maybe it is just a luck of the respondent.

    etc etc etc ;)
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page