Domain Manage

Tm

Discussion in 'General Board' started by zehrila, Mar 6, 2006.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. zehrila Pakistan

    zehrila Active Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2006
    Posts:
    483
    Likes Received:
    5
    mmMM Just wondering if either domaining is going to be corporate totally and individuals would have to buy a license or a TM along with a domain to keep the name for himself ?:confused:
     
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

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

    olebean Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    29
    Welcome to the relms of international intelectual property
     
  4. domaingenius

    domaingenius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2004
    Posts:
    1,386
    Likes Received:
    10
    You are correct, that is definately the way things are gradually creeping. You know that big business with all the money involved are not going to like or accept domainers like us blocking what they want and dont want to pay for !!. yes I think we are going to see many more battles between TM holders and Domain registrants over next few years, and indeed the .eu fiasco will cause a lot of headaches, not least as the arguments start over unused TM's etc etc.

    DG
     
  5. olebean

    olebean Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    29
    While there is a relationship between domains and TM, along with it being more cost effective to issue DRS than pay. Big business will go done that route. I can't blame them, equally if you don't take the same action u to will end up getting screwed
     
  6. retired_member6

    retired_member6 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    5,605
    Likes Received:
    29
    I've got a priceless claim in this DRS, they're claiming unreg trade mark on four individual characters, the initials of their business and claim everyone knows them by these four characters and they hold the .com, yet haven't provided any evidence to support the former.

    So fair enough, they can sort of claim the eight characters as an unreg trade mark ****.com but they have never used ****.co.uk so how can they claim that as unreg trade mark? they've never used it in advertising, nothing. Also holding the .com doesn't gaurantee the award of .co.uk

    Is POBOX 44 the same as POBOX 45? Similar but totally different addresses. So here's me thinking - no proof so no claim, but I'm still sat here wondering whether they can win or not... The rules are confusing but if the rules are correct I shouldn't have anything to worry about.

    They don't even use the four characters as a whole on their website, nor in their logo. What's all that about? claming unreg trade mark on four letters they don't even bloody use, the nucking pirates! Oh and what's even more priceless is in trade mark they'd have to prove passing off under the service they're registered under.

    I'm not even in the same possible service, not passing off nor selling to a competitor of the same service or industry. Grrrr, if this was government law the loopholes would have been closed by now to stop this aggro.
     
    Last edited: Mar 6, 2006
  7. zehrila Pakistan

    zehrila Active Member Full Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2006
    Posts:
    483
    Likes Received:
    5
    if that is the scene REGISTRARS must not allow any one register any domain which has a TM they should mention it on their index or when ever you look for a domain.I mean like when if you whois a domain name lets say BIGBULLIE.com and it says its available for registration but there is a TM for same name REGISTRAR must mention it on the side DONT REGISTER UNLESS YOU HAVE A TM.I feel like some one suing all registrars for not doing that hehe.CORRECT ME IF WRONG.
     
  8. SF

    SF Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 2005
    Posts:
    7,515
    Likes Received:
    57
    I have heard Chris Holland has had lots of experience about handling DRS cases, in some cases he has he got 3-4 times the DRS fee.

    I would email him at Chris@uk3.com with the details of the case.

    You can find the thread Here
     
  9. Information Pro

    Information Pro New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    4
    Likes Received:
    3
    Chris Holland has been involved in at least three DRS cases where decisions were reached, all going against the respondent. Despite this, Chris still invites people who have been served with a DRS to "talk to him before doing anything" (http://www.detagged.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?p=1394#post1394). :p :p

    1. DRS 01840 - promax.co.uk - Maximuscle v CHC Internet

    In this case Chris Holland claimed that promax.co.uk was booked by a client of their dropcatcher system but the client changed their booking shortly before the name was dropped. CHC decided to keep the booking on their own "house" account and were successful in acquiring it. After acquisition CHC claim they sent out 15 emails to various companies who had products or services called "promax". CHC claim that one of these emails reached Maximuscle and CHC were telephoned by them asking how much the domain name was listed at. CHC quoted £950 + VAT. CHC claim that they subsequently researched Maximuscle and found out that they had a trademark on the term "promax" so emailed them to offer the name at cost price. CHC lost this DRS because they were found to have speculatively registered the domain name and "hawked it" to 15 other companies who had products or services called "promax".

    "Only when it suspected the game was up in this case did the Respondent bother to investigate whether or now one of its targets might in fact have relevant IP rights, and only then did the Respondent seek to modify its demands".

    2. DRS 02151 - fruitoftheloom.co.uk - Fruit of the Loom Inc. v Neal Fenna

    In this case the domain name was originally registered in the name of "CHC", on CHC's tag. The Complainant's solicitors wrote to CHC on 12th March 2004 requesting transfer of the domain name. CHC replied to the correspondence 2nd April 2004 and, amongst other things, asserted that they had sold the domain name to Neal Fenna.

    The Response to the Complaint, from Neal Fenna, is interesting:

    “I purchased this domain name with the intention of setting up an ecommerce website to sell Fruit of the Loom products. This website is currently being constructed for me. It has been alleged by the complainant that I registered the domain name abusively but this is incorrect as I did not register the domain name, the domain name was already registered and I purchased the domain name off the original registrant CHC Internet and can produce documentary evidence of this. I have to say that I am disappointed that CHC Internet did not see fit to inform me of any such dispute at the time of my purchase. I have never received any communication whatsoever from Fruit of the Loom or its representatives and was unaware of any complaint or dispute regarding this domain name. I do not want to sell this domain as I have a business plan for the development of the forthcoming website.”

    Although this assertion by the respondent didn't mitigate the situation, the Independent Expert unusually wrote to Nominet asking them to invite the respondent to make a further submission to him if he so chose. The respondent made a further submission, including an invoice issued to his company for the sale of the domain name fruitoftheloom.co.uk. Respondent also commented:

    “I was offered the domain name from CHC, as in the past I have purchased many names either from CHC or through CHC using CHC nominet tag, yes I do a substantial amount of business through CHC. I was phoned by CHC who informed me of a name that he had acquired, there was no mention of a DRS, so for sure the CHC used me to offload the name, I agree totally with that, it was my intention to use the name and setup an e-commerce site to sell their products. CHC knows that I am a web designer as I have built many sites for them, his phone call to me was to ask if I was looking for a good name to use for e-commerce and when he told me the name I jumped as it the cost was £700 + VAT (invoice attached). After hearing from the DRS I phoned CHC and demanded my money back, NO was the answer and he found it amusing, since then I have moved all .co.uk names away from CHC. The complainant is wrong in saying my intention was the same as the CHC, I was caught out by CHC, after getting the first notice of a pending DRS I immediately offered the name to the complainant for the price of my payment to CHC.”

    3. DRS 02280 - ghd.co.uk - Jemella Limited -v- Landlord Mortgages Limited

    Chris Holland had a substantial hand in this DRS. The decision was subsequently overturned. You can read about his abusive emails, in relation to this case, elsewhere on this forum.

    As sure as the sun will rise tomorrow morning, the great Chris Holland / CHC "PR Machine" will be along momentarily to explain away all of the above. We'll surely be told - in the usual rhetoric - that my spelling and grammar is appalling, how I must be a fake profile because this happens to be my first post, how many hundreds of cases CHC have won for people that didn't go through to the experts, and how the decks are stacked against CHC because nominet are anti them. The fact remains that out of the 3 DRS cases highlighted involving Chris Holland or CHC, the respondents lost 3 out of 3.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  10. retired_member27

    retired_member27 Retired Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2005
    Posts:
    708
    Likes Received:
    13
    Not sure what slagging CHC off has to do with this thread. I've never dealt with CHC before so I can't comment if they're good or bad.

    As for stats on DRS cases they've lost, yes it would be bad if it was 3/3 (100%) but 3/100 (3%) would be very good. What I'm saying is that you just can't give three cases and then say they're bad without indicating how many they have won.
     
  11. olebean

    olebean Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2005
    Posts:
    2,216
    Likes Received:
    29
    The irony of the post by information pro is this.

    1. They just happen to land on AD at a moment CHC was mentioned

    2. As apd kindly pointed out info pro mentioned only the negative, some of which appears as pure hearsay and then advertise his own forum.

    With all respect Infomation Pro, if your intentions were to diss CHC it failed to work. You would have gained more respect / credibility using you "normal" login name and "debating" the whys etc

    This does not mean I do not believe you him or anyone else, it means particularly, your motives / manner appear somewhat suspect and possibly ill thought out.
     
  12. Information Pro

    Information Pro New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    4
    Likes Received:
    3
    I was directly replying to the post by DomainBrand.co.uk. According to http://www.nic.uk/disputes/drs/decisions/ they've won none. Settlements in mediation are not - and in no way should they be considered - wins because often it is cheaper or easier to settle than to make a point with an expert. Also there was no slagging off. I provided a response to DomainBrand.co.uk with material freely available online for anyone to see. People should make up their own conclusions after reading those three decisions.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  13. Information Pro

    Information Pro New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2006
    Posts:
    4
    Likes Received:
    3
    1 - Post was made in response to a relevant post by DomainBrand.co.uk.

    2 - Read the cases. Have you? Doubt it.

    No motives. I wanted to post something relevant in reply. I don't want to be targetted in person as a result. Controversial subject. So far only two nonames have replied. I await comments from key players or - as I suspect - are they going to avoid talking about what everyone thinks but nobody dares talk about.
     
  14. retired_member6

    retired_member6 Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 2005
    Posts:
    5,605
    Likes Received:
    29
    Let's not get carried away, this thread was about to get interesting with regards TM issues and what could be constituted unreg or regd TM regarding domain names.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page