Philosophy.co.uk lost by Velvet on a summary decision

[invincible]

Philosophy.co.uk is still registered to the Respondent as of now.

 

[James]

Velvet had a very good reason for not responding - it was in fact quite out of their control on this occasion. An appeal has been filed (or is currently being filed) and they're hopeful the decision will be reversed.

The displayed advertising is based on what Google's algorithm deems the word "philosophy.co.uk" to mean. If you type "philosophy" into Google you'll notice that all of the adwords displayed are for skincare products. Google will always consider the domain / keywords within the domain itself when displaying its advertising, irrespective of any keyword optimisation that may have been implemented. Sometimes you can reduce the chances of certain advertising appearing by selecting irrelevant keywords, but the likelihood is that this will not work 100% of the time.

Arguably this phenomenon should be looked upon quite differently when dealing with a more obviously infringing typo domain such as, say, "dinsey.co.uk" compared to a generic domain such as philosophy.co.uk.

This is the type of defense as used in the oasis.co.uk case.

Unfortunately many brands know the system and try to game the system.

 

[Pred]

very good points James

 

[invincible]

Velvet had a very good reason for not responding - it was in fact quite out of their control on this occasion. An appeal has been filed (or is currently being filed) and they're hopeful the decision will be reversed.

It's hard for me to consider why a Registrant wouldn't respond without knowing the reasons for not doing so (only terrible things like accident, illness, spring to mind ).

The displayed advertising is based on what Google's algorithm deems the word "philosophy.co.uk" to mean. If you type "philosophy" into Google you'll notice that all of the adwords displayed are for skincare products. Google will always consider the domain / keywords within the domain itself when displaying its advertising, irrespective of any keyword optimisation that may have been implemented. Sometimes you can reduce the chances of certain advertising appearing by selecting irrelevant keywords, but the likelihood is that this will not work 100% of the time.

Arguably this phenomenon should be looked upon quite differently when dealing with a more obviously infringing typo domain such as, say, "dinsey.co.uk" compared to a generic domain such as philosophy.co.uk.

This is the type of defense as used in the oasis.co.uk case.

Unfortunately many brands know the system and try to game the system.

I understand. I just hope the appeal panel don't decide that it could have been put it in a response to the original DRS and, on this occasion, allowing the appeal isn't in the interests of justice. I wish Velvet the best of luck.

 

[GreyWing]

It's hard for me to consider why a Registrant wouldn't respond without knowing the reasons for not doing so (only terrible things like accident, illness, spring to mind ).

Might be dead, coma, taking a trip round Asia, the admin email is no longer used, moved address. There are numerous legitimate possibilities which is why this policy should have been scrapped imo.

What worries me is that this could happen to someone who doesn't have 3k to fund the appeal. Although domains are a big part of our life, Nominet and even some on here (nobody in particular, we all do it) need to understand that some members of the public with some fantastic domain names, don't have a clue who Nominet are, they think 123-reg are the ones that run the system.

So when they get an email from them, why should they respond to another scam email from another company they have never heard of asking for a response.

Nominet need to realise they ain't the centre of people's worlds and they don't have a God given right for everyone in the country with a domain name to know who they are and their terms and conditions. If they did want people to know who they are, then they should do away with resellers like 123-reg, one and one etc and sell direct.

 

[invincible]

Might be dead, coma, taking a trip round Asia, the admin email is no longer used, moved address. There are numerous legitimate possibilities which is why this policy should have been scrapped imo.

What do you propose for its replacement? Remember it's a requirement of every major Registry that WHOIS contact details are kept up to date. ICANN mandate it for gTLDs which is why I receive annual emails from Registrars reminding me to keep my contact details up to date on those.

What worries me is that this could happen to someone who doesn't have 3k to fund the appeal.

At least Nominet offer an appeal. The UDRP doesn't so court is the only option. With .uk there is a choice. Sometimes court might be more appropriate.

Although domains are a big part of our life, Nominet and even some on here (nobody in particular, we all do it) need to understand that some members of the public with some fantastic domain names, don't have a clue who Nominet are, they think 123-reg are the ones that run the system.

Some will know who Nominet are and some won't. Nominet cannot hope for 100% coverage because there will always be situations they cannot compensate for. Nominet Registrars are mandated to make their customers aware of the Nominet registration agreement before a .uk registration can be made. Most of us have heard of the DVLA even though many of us deal with them through the Post Office.

So when they get an email from them, why should they respond to another scam email from another company they have never heard of asking for a response.

I wonder if you've really thought about this comment. Have you ever been on the end of a DRS to see what comes? Nominet don't word their communications like some Nigerian 419 email. It's all backed up by carefully worded and informative literature linking to their web site. Anyone in receipt of a DRS who hadn't heard of Nominet before could read it and do ten minutes of research to ascertain the genuinity of the communications.

Nominet need to realise they ain't the centre of people's worlds and they don't have a God given right for everyone in the country with a domain name to know who they are and their terms and conditions. If they did want people to know who they are, then they should do away with resellers like 123-reg, one and one etc and sell direct.

"God given" is immaterial because the fact remains that every Registrant of a .uk domain name has entered into a legal contract to abide by the Nominet Registration Agreement/T&Cs.

Nominet do sell direct but it costs more so they don't publicise it. They want to encourage take up of .uk and offer discounts to members who are Registrars because the domain names are often sold bundled together with hosting.

Nominet have reduced their direct communications to customers in order to minimise confusion because back along some Registrants were paying both a Registrar and Nominet for the same domain name.

Registrars now also have the ability to customise the content of "Welcome Emails", "Renewal Emails" and the "Renewal Text" sent by Nominet to Registrants. All this is offered to assist Registrars communicating with their customers and to try to mitigate Registrant confusion.

Incidently in gTLD we have ICANN, the Registries (e.g. Verisign for .com), Registrars (e.g. ENOM, Godaddy) and UDRP centres (WIPO, NAF). Nominet have attempted to reduce this substantially.

 

[foz]

Rather than questioning the process, my thoughts are towards the qualification(s) of the expert that came to the decision to transfer. Where do Nominet get these so-called experts from? Smacks of bias for the IP fraternity, when a decision like this is handed down.

 

[foz]

http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/drs/experts/expertpanel/andrewclinton/

http://www.asb-law.com/asb/home.asp

http://www.asb-law.com/asb/people/biography.asp?peopleid=422

Nowhere on their site do they refer to expertise in domain names.

What are peoples thoughts on performance? Do these appointed experts get reviewed by Nominet?

Are Nominet unable to appoint well rounded intellectuals/solicitors/lawyers that focus or specialize in the domain name field?

Why do we find some lawyers that are pro private domain ownership and the rest seem anti?

 

[GreyWing]

What do you propose for its replacement? Remember it's a requirement of every major Registry that WHOIS contact details are kept up to date. ICANN mandate it for gTLDs which is why I receive annual emails from Registrars reminding me to keep my contact details up to date on those.

At least Nominet offer an appeal. The UDRP doesn't so court is the only option. With .uk there is a choice. Sometimes court might be more appropriate.

Some will know who Nominet are and some won't. Nominet cannot hope for 100% coverage because there will always be situations they cannot compensate for. Nominet Registrars are mandated to make their customers aware of the Nominet registration agreement before a .uk registration can be made. Most of us have heard of the DVLA even though many of us deal with them through the Post Office.

I wonder if you've really thought about this comment. Have you ever been on the end of a DRS to see what comes? Nominet don't word their communications like some Nigerian 419 email. It's all backed up by carefully worded and informative literature linking to their web site. Anyone in receipt of a DRS who hadn't heard of Nominet before could read it and do ten minutes of research to ascertain the genuinity of the communications.

"God given" is immaterial because the fact remains that every Registrant of a .uk domain name has entered into a legal contract to abide by the Nominet Registration Agreement/T&Cs.

Nominet do sell direct but it costs more so they don't publicise it. They want to encourage take up of .uk and offer discounts to members who are Registrars because the domain names are often sold bundled together with hosting.

Nominet have reduced their direct communications to customers in order to minimise confusion because back along some Registrants were paying both a Registrar and Nominet for the same domain name.

Registrars now also have the ability to customise the content of "Welcome Emails", "Renewal Emails" and the "Renewal Text" sent by Nominet to Registrants. All this is offered to assist Registrars communicating with their customers and to try to mitigate Registrant confusion.

Incidently in gTLD we have ICANN, the Registries (e.g. Verisign for .com), Registrars (e.g. ENOM, Godaddy) and UDRP centres (WIPO, NAF). Nominet have attempted to reduce this substantially.

I wouldn't argue with you on a technical level that you were wrong on anything there. We are basically just discussing if there are any legitimate reasons to not reply, not whether replying or not is right or wrong.

There is no way for me to quantify the amounts of scam mail or scam texts that people receive from companies everyday, so it would be impossible for me to say how much attention people will give to Nominet's letters and emails.

Let me try to give an example though, would you say it was fair for someone to lose a domain because they didn't pay £30 to the "Domain Registration of America" letters that we all receive? of course we know it is a scam, but we have to try and look at it from a non technical persons point of view.

All I am saying is that if someone doesn't reply to a letter, it should go through the normal DRS route with normal DRS standards to be met. If Nominet want to charge the complainant £10 to do so then that is up to them.

 

[afx]

A total disgraceful sham of a decision.

Take a holiday (for more than two weeks), or choose not to respond (probably because you think it is futile) and your assets are given away by lawyers who do not have the requisite skills / knowledge / experience to make these judgements.

As for the PPC links for complainants products appearing on the domain -- so what ??? The amount of times some reverse hijack attempts have been made by bidding on adwords to force this to happen to then screen shot and make it the foundation of the case.

So the precedent is now set -- go and set yourself up an adwords account and wholesale reverse hijack your face off any parked generic domain -- you'll have Nominet lawyers helping you along each step of the way. All you need for it to succeed is that there is no response from the respondent -- who obviously is a cyber squatting miscreant who deserved to be relieved of his domain.

 

[foz]

The registration of the domain name pre-dates the complainants mark(s).

 

[stellar73]

T

Oops pressed post by accident while dreading the above comment!

Very interesting thread anyway!