Domain Manage

mercer.co.uk DRS

Discussion in 'Domain Name Disputes' started by Whois-Search, Sep 1, 2006.

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

    Whois-Search Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    1,567
    Likes Received:
    27
    Another new DRS just appeared online:

    http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/8924_mercer.pdf

    So should he have created a textile shopping site instead?

    http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=mercer
     
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Joined:
    1999
    Messages:
    Many
    Likes Received:
    Lots
     
  3. retired_member6

    retired_member6 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    5,605
    Likes Received:
    29
    What's the adjudicator's problem, it isn't illegal to sell domain names. The company paid £750 plus legal team instead of just the £950, it shows you should just ask for £10,000 then let them get on with it, pathetic.

    And they mention out of pocket costs when is nominet going to remove this bloody stupid bit of wording? Time and time again defenders of Nominet say how much their staff should earn an hour in justifcation of the fees charged for transfer before they were dropped on release of due information, and here they state a person should only earn £6 plus out of pocket costs, so put in the DRS reply, out of pocket costs are £250 an hour and the time it took to watch and register and plan a catch and then deal with any offers and COMPLAINTS. Making £125,000 so stick it up your arse.

    REMOVE THE WORDING!

    Also there's slander in that DRS, get your solicitor on to them.

    It's a bad decision and the adjudicator should have stated, pay the man the amount of money for the domain name instead of the £10000 it's taken you to get this far.

    Bad decision. Change the wording nominet, who are you to say what is out of pocket expenses, respondents need to put £250 an hour in the DRS defence from now own. Job done. Nice use by the complainant on British TM law, summed it right up, it's a load of rollocks.

    I'd have replied "I regd the domain name because I bloody wanted to you yank"

    *I wouldn't have regd the domain nor got a chance but shows the company has too much money and would rather go all round the houses than pay the little man who had the better idea of buying a surname domain they forgot about.
     
  4. grandin United Kingdom

    grandin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2006
    Posts:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    10
    rights

    By ordering the transfer and not cancelling and making re-available has the expert decided the law in respect to a who has 'highest rights'. The expert has been made aware that the name represents a surname and therefore 'rights' aren't just rights relating to the complainant.

    As EURID told me......A Trade Mark holder may THINK they have higher rights but it doesn't necessarily imply that they do...they went on to say that the only place to resolve the issue is in a court or arbitration proceeding.....I will have to get the email out but it read something like that

    Given that the expert has shown trade mark holders at the top of the tree then I would expect the Policy to reflect this

    Lee
     
  5. FC Domains

    FC Domains Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    1,072
    Likes Received:
    13
    It is apparent that the Respondent believed that the Domain Name
    would attract potential purchasers, which would include the Complainant.


    So the judgement is that a registration is abusive if you think that you will be able to sell it.
    The registrant said he had never heard of this company, so what gives them a claim?
     
  6. domaingenius

    domaingenius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    1,386
    Likes Received:
    10
    Yet again this is why in order to be fair to everyone the DRS must be aligned with Trademark laws and rules and then everyone knows where they stand. WHY do Nominet, and indeed WIPO, consider that selling domains for more than you bought them for is a "crime" ?????. If Nominet dont want people reselling domains for a profit then they should make it a rule and bar speculators altogether, but of course they wont do that.

    DG
     
  7. retired_member12

    retired_member12 Retired Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2006
    Posts:
    1,505
    Likes Received:
    23
    Makin a profit

    Nominet's structure is based in part on fee paying memberships, amongst which a number of drop catching tag holders who are, depending on the names they acquire, able to sell them on, a situation which has been known and accepted for many years. Although a not for profit organisation itself, one presumes that as a limited company its records will reflect it makes corporate profits against which it will pay corporation tax.
    To publically bar people from making a profit from the sale of domain names would in fact be counter productive to them, as it aligns them more towards the requirements of a government body, and would only serve the wishes of those who would like it to be so.
    One should be thankful that Nominet is currently structured in this way, as there is no way on earth that a government body would allow for private members to be given the advantages of the current tag holder structure. All government bodies which are required to provide public services must do so in an even handed and fair manner to the public. On this basis though, it would be in Nominet's interests to clarify its acceptance of making a profit, else it will find itself more exposed to the calls of those wishing to see it made more accountable to government.
     
  8. admin Spain

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2004
    Posts:
    10,084
    Likes Received:
    115
    So now they are saying having Google Adsense on your domain can help you lose it!
     
  9. retired_member6

    retired_member6 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    5,605
    Likes Received:
    29
    The main is an idiot, and below is the proof and I don't care how many letters he has after his name. Probably five, i d i o t.
     
  10. Whois-Search United Kingdom

    Whois-Search Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    1,567
    Likes Received:
    27
  11. Ellis United Kingdom

    Ellis Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2005
    Posts:
    814
    Likes Received:
    9
    Another stinker!

    I would get in touch will M&S and Mercer Dial Guages and get them to issue DRS's too.

    Mercer Dial Guages has held a patent since 1944.

    Then let's see how the "expert" deals with that!
     
  12. retired_member6

    retired_member6 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    5,605
    Likes Received:
    29
    It would be a different expert so wouldn't matter, if it was the same one then they could have a merry go round as they wouldn't be able to backtrack on the inane rubbish they wrote beforehand without handing back everybody's money.

    Edit: and domain.
     
  13. grandin United Kingdom

    grandin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2006
    Posts:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    10
    money back guarantee

    ....handing back everybody's money.

    That is certainly minimum Nominet should do!!!

    Are they selling an illgeal item...A domain name is named prior to contract...I would therefore return it...its was never fit for the purpose...get your money back

    Lee
     
  14. Ellis United Kingdom

    Ellis Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2005
    Posts:
    814
    Likes Received:
    9
    It makes a mockery of the first come first served basis Nominet are always on about.

    The whois for mercer.co.uk shows it was regged by IMO in 2004 -

    If this 2 bit recruitment consultants that nobodys ever heard of registered mercer.com in 1992, you'd have thought they'd have come in much earlier for this name.

    Or maybe they've been waiting for a better chance of winning the DRS.

    Another "expert" with blood on his hands
     
  15. tifosi United Kingdom

    tifosi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2004
    Posts:
    3,128
    Likes Received:
    45
    Points of view.

    Having read the DRS a few points of view to yet again another DRS with a dubious outcome.

    The expert seems to have really been overwed by the international business interests if the extensive initial history of the mercer group. In reality they have rights but that is limited to being a company with the same name as the domain, and in having trademarks in the certain area of expertise. In itself this is NO right to own the registration to the uk domain name, which is by Nominets own policy on a first come first served basis. That the current registrant has no direct relationship to the name... which is a common british surname! is NOT relevent.

    The complainant has summarised 2 totally different issues. 1 rights to the domain, and rights of ownership of registration. As stated above part 2 is based solely on a first come first served basis. That exterts also make this invalid assumption is invalid logic.

    Has the complainant had prior contact with the respondent. Has the complainant tried to pass off themselves in the sector, or compromised the trademarks? NO. Has the respondent registered the domain with the intent of actively selling it to the complainant or their competitors? NO. Is this registration abusive as defined by policy3a(i)(ii)(iii). Clearly NO.

    And 3(ii) & 3(iii) clearly not relevent.

    So how is this an abusive registration?

    Again a recognised and accepted practice. I REALLY REALLY wish that the DRS 'validation' procedure involved not only whether its under the 2000 works and has all the necessary documentation, but that there is also a pre-processing checklist for basic policy fullfilment.

    It's interesting that the DRS dispute brochure wording says
    Now this is an issue which REALLY needs to be explained fully at the PAB etc meetings. If Nominet operate on a f-c-f-s basis then that is legitimate reason. You shouldn't have to explain any current or future use, and a parked or dormant domain should not be detrimental to the rights of registration.

    Moving on:
    Now this is big business in full flow. Why is an international company moving into the UK sector have an automatic right to the .uk domain name? It doesn't. Mercer were clearly in the wrong in demanding retrospective registration rights. This is an issue which the PAB need to iterate strongly. Otherwise this will happen again and again, and more frrequently. In past discussions on this board we have indicated this and Nominet promised this to be clearly defined on the website drs notes.

    Again a clear misinterpretation of the 'blocking' definition. This is the proactive registration with full and explicit knowledge of the complainants company with the full intention to deny the complainant the registration rights to the domain.
    And again domain sales and domain resales business is a recognised and established and accepted practice both for the .uk and all other major tld's and that domains have an intrinsic business value greatly in excess of the out-of-pocket transaction value.

    What??


    Ok moving on to the 'expert decision'.

    Policy 3a(i)(a) is crucial.
    From the expert:
    Deeply disturbing. The expert has clearly made 2 assumptions and misjudgements.
    i. That the respondent must have known about the complainant pre-registration and that they registsered the domain name primarily with the intent to sell to the complainant or a competitor of the complaiant. Clearly the expert on the basis of the evidence provided can NOT make this decision. NO NO NO. This is a subjective leap of judgement which has no place in a drs, as has the expert doing their own research based on incorrect usage of search engine results.

    ii. That having no current plans to develop or develop the domain is evidence of abuse.

    The expert clearly states that 3(a)(1)(c) has NOT been proven then states that
     
  16. grandin United Kingdom

    grandin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2006
    Posts:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    10
    Disagree sliightly

    I disagree slightly with stephen.

    The mark mercer is a surname and company/business name(s)....there are many 'rights' holders linked to this name.

    However its not generic in the sense its a common word/term.

    The question is... did the respondent intend to use the name for email etc... or did he just buy it to sell to one of these 'rights' holders? The expert (in my opnion) came to the conclusion that the respondent took advantage of 'rights' holders. The respondent gave no evidence to show that he intended to use the name for email, INSTEAD he set up ppc and added a for sale sign.

    The confusion comes in the remedy. Just because the complaint complained does not give him unequivocal rights to the name...I personally think it should have been cancelled and made re-available on a first come first served basis.....BUT maybe the respondent should have been given an opportunity to honour what he said he wanted to do ie...email for many 'rights' holders........everyone makes mistakes even the Patent Office

    Lee
     
  17. Ellis United Kingdom

    Ellis Active Member

    Joined:
    Aug 2005
    Posts:
    814
    Likes Received:
    9
    IMO brilliant post Stephen.

    Lee says - and makes a good point

    "The confusion comes in the remedy. Just because the complaint complained does not give him unequivocal rights to the name...I personally think it should have been cancelled and made re-available on a first come first served basis..."

    But according to the wording of this DRS, the only people who are allowed rights to this name are people called "Mercer", company's with "Mercer" in their trading name or entities with trademarks containing the word "Mercer".

    So theoretically, who has the right to own smiths.co.uk?

    Smiths Crisps
    WH Smiths
    An organisation thats spent (place your own figure) on catching dropping domain names and parks them
    or
    Anyone or business called Smith.

    It's beyond me.
     
  18. retired_member11

    retired_member11 Retired Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    972
    Likes Received:
    4
    ...and if the current PAB does nothing?

    The sanction is to vote them off one by one. A candidate wishing to be elected on this issue simply needs to publish a manifesto declaring the present DRS process faulty and in need of a revamp. Then we will see from the voting just how much of an issue DRS Decisions are to the electorate. Some on the PAB need removing generally due to their overly compliant attitudes.

    What the DRS needs is oversight of Decisions vis-a-vis the wording of the Policy. Experts have to be told to go away and think again if they have clearly misinterpreted the wording. The wording is quite precise. Otherwise 'disrepute'.
     
  19. grandin United Kingdom

    grandin Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 2006
    Posts:
    1,304
    Likes Received:
    10
    I have asked Nominet

    Ellis, I asked Nominet whether it is ok to buy a rights name that you will use in a manner that helps many rights holders....Nominet wouldn't tell me...so I am left in the dark AGAIN....

    Examples:-

    yellow pages...google all do the same...make money out of rights holders...what does 118 500 do???......they run a directory of names and make money from it.............

    TO NOMINET:-

    WE ALL MAKE MISTAKES BUT YOU CAN'T TAKE AWAY A DOMAIN NAME UNTIL YOU EDUCATE US HOW TO ACT WITH IT........UNFAIR TO EXPECT TOO MUCH OF US WHEN THE PATENT OFFICE CAN'T ACCURATELY ASSESS RIGHTS...GIVE US A CHANCE TO MAKE GOOD ANY WRONG WHEN WE USE WHAT WE THINK IS A GENERIC DOMAIN NAME

    Lee
     
  20. admin Spain

    admin Administrator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2004
    Posts:
    10,084
    Likes Received:
    115
    Good discussion, nice post Stephen.

    I own the .co.uk for my surname, the .COM is owned by a huge mining Company in Canada - what happen sif they decide they want to move into the UK market? Based on the Mercer decision I could well lose it...

    Thank god there is nothing left worth mining in the UK :)
     
  21. tifosi United Kingdom

    tifosi Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 2004
    Posts:
    3,128
    Likes Received:
    45
    Part of the experts reasoning is that IMO didn't have rights to the domain because they don't have reason to have the name. You do.

    Saying that, what about most of the surnames (and by relation placenames) in the uk. Tha vast majority are NOT owner by people with 'surname' rights. A lot are owned by cumulative registrants owning large numbers of them and providing information links. Is this a valid use of them. This case clearly goes against this!!

    Ok so this DRS is not about a generic, but the above applies.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page