Enjoy unlimited access to all forum features for FREE! Optional upgrade available for extra perks.

Toth v Emirates

Discussion in 'Domain Name Disputes' started by domainking, Feb 14, 2012.

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

    rob Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2005
    Posts:
    5,966
    Likes Received:
    119
    Totally agree.
     
  2. Domain Forum

    Acorn Domains Elite Member

    Joined:
    1999
    Messages:
    Many
    Likes Received:
    Lots
    IWA Meetup
     
  3. Rob_F United Kingdom

    Rob_F Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2007
    Posts:
    1,486
    Likes Received:
    24
    Good point and one I hadn't really considered when I replied earlier, at 5am.

    I think this might not be the end of the story anyway. Will be interesting to see what happens when a big company is on the losing side of a DRS for a name they really want/need.

    - Rob
     
    Last edited: Mar 25, 2012
  4. safesys

    safesys Member

    Joined:
    May 2005
    Posts:
    14
    Likes Received:
    1
    as afx noted, the DRS isn't the end of the road for a complainant by any means. they can still bring a court case under trademark/passing off law. the emirates case is about whether a court will rule on a DRS case itself (ie declaring if a registration is abusive under the DRS policy) - Judge Mann said they won't. So as it stands, complainants have a route to get the domain they want without the DRS, registrants don't have a way to have a DRS appeals decision against them quashed.

    I don't know if MT will be able to find a way to frame his case in law to get the kind of declaration that might satisfy nominet.
     
    Last edited: Mar 26, 2012
  5. crabfoot United Kingdom

    crabfoot Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2009
    Posts:
    888
    Likes Received:
    16
    Completely facetious, but, if my memory serves me, Sony own the trademark EMI.

    Would the way the judge interprets things allow Sony to object to everybody, including those Arab peoples' TM?
     
  6. invincible

    invincible Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    101
    Might have been related to the former registrant of iTunes.co.uk going to court to seek a judicial review and being told the drs procedure had an appeal so to use that. Google for the full details. :)


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
     
  7. invincible

    invincible Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    101
    Are we still waiting for a second part of the overall judgement from Justice Mann? I'm sure there was something else he was mulling over. Any ETA? I see MT still has the domain name.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
     
  8. safesys

    safesys Member

    Joined:
    May 2005
    Posts:
    14
    Likes Received:
    1
    just to add, this sums up this particular decision:

    http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/517.html

    - - -

    yeah, the final paragraph of this decision was:

    Will be interesting to see the nature of their cross-appeal - and to see the ramifications if they lose that. If a complainant goes to court to press their trademark/unregistered rights and loses, will nominet accept that as showing they don't have sufficient rights and to consider the ruling as a higher power than the DRS. I doubt they would given their dogged defence of the DRS.

    So far MT has only failed on a technicality to get the underlying dispute heard by the courts - emirates have not had their rights tested yet.

    - - -

    over the years there has been a lot of big talk with domainers saying they consider the DRS irrelevant and that they'd just take it to court if they lost. At least MT has put his money where his mouth is on this as is trying - and it has woken everyone up to the elephant in the room: We simply may not have that option.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2012
  9. rob

    rob Founding Member

    Joined:
    Jan 2005
    Posts:
    5,966
    Likes Received:
    119
    If there is a dependence on 'experts' in the courts, my post to the Nominet forum regarding the courses run with Nominet themselves and the Experts to legal firms takes on greater importance.

    Are the courts aware that such things go on I wonder?
     
  10. safesys

    safesys Member

    Joined:
    May 2005
    Posts:
    14
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't see how it would make any great difference unless someone decided to sue nominet and/or the experts themselves. It appears to me that Judge Mann simply said that the courts are not equipped to play the part of an expert in a contract that calls on an expert to make the determination for abusive registration - a call that is made under the DRS policy rather than law.

    no idea on how it is being funded.

    there are 2 elements to it:

    1) the ability as a registrant to have the courts determine rights and have that finding render a DRS appeals decision moot

    2) the question of emirates legal rights vs MT's - emirates can elect to get an answer to this through the courts, whether MT can depends on the above.

    The first prong is the big one for registrants as a whole - and that's the one that has been ruled on when framed the way MT did.

    The second is personal to MT and will likely consider how it was used, MT's track record etc.

    a fund would be up to people who want to help the cases he is involved in and whether MT would accept it.
     
    Last edited: Mar 27, 2012
  11. anthony United Kingdom

    anthony Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2006
    Posts:
    1,775
    Likes Received:
    37
    More importantly, the 40% or so of DRS's which are overturned on appeal should have any high court judge asking serious questions about the reliability of the DRS process in the first place.
     
  12. safesys

    safesys Member

    Joined:
    May 2005
    Posts:
    14
    Likes Received:
    1
    why? A DRS appeal is relatively expensive, it follows that appeals are more likely to be filed where there is an expectation of an overturn.
     
  13. invincible

    invincible Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 2005
    Posts:
    4,203
    Likes Received:
    101
    You've quoted the 40% figure before and I believe I have also previously pointed out that the way you state it is misleading. I think you mean to say that 40% of all DRS decisions *that are appealed* have the original decision overturned. It certainly isn't the case that 40% of all DRS decisions are overturned on appeal, which I want to make sure is absolutely clear here! :)

    The fact that 40% of the DRS decisions *that are appealed* have the original decision overturned could be because one party had a genuine belief that the original decision was wrong, for all kinds of reasons. People think carefully before they appeal. What percentage do the DRS reversals constitute of the entire number of DRS decisions that have gone to a summary or full decision?

    One cannot simply suggest that because perhaps 40% of DRS decisions that are appealed have the original decision overturned, the entire DRS is flawed.


    Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
     
  14. domainking

    domainking Active Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2006
    Posts:
    497
    Likes Received:
    10
    Yes this is English law but we also have " Scottish law"would think that a case would also have to go into Scottish courts for a ruling with regards to this.
     
  15. anthony United Kingdom

    anthony Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2006
    Posts:
    1,775
    Likes Received:
    37
    ? You're correcting something that didn't need correcting. My comment was very clear, AND TRUE, which is that 40% of DRSs are overturned on appeal.

    Well stating that belief is pretty obvious really, dont you think? But just because they believe it is wrong, it doesn't follow that they are right until put to the test. Importantly from your viewpoint, it also doesn't default to a position that all the other DRS decisions were therefore correct. Unless they too go to appeal, you could never know whether they could be overturned. Yes there are many DRS decisions that are blatently obvious are correct, but it doesn't follow that they all are.

    Exactly, and that decision will boil down to matters such as whether they can afford to appeal, or whether there is a value (of whatever nature) in the domain to merit them spending and appealing. That's going to be a minimum £3,600 decision in every case, it is totally naive to ignore this and then expect to uphold all non-appealed decisions as therefore valid and correct.

    What is your opinion about the high percentage of appeals being overtuned, and how the original 'experts' (that always makes me laugh) got it so wrong?
     
    Last edited: Mar 30, 2012
  16. safesys

    safesys Member

    Joined:
    May 2005
    Posts:
    14
    Likes Received:
    1
    you're making a straw man argument there - that is not what he said at all

    that is a correct statement. given the very low ratio of appeals to decisions, appeals themselves don't really shed any light on the efficacy of the drs as a whole. drs appeals are inherently skewed towards cases where there is an expectation of the decision being overturned by their very nature.

    if anything, it suggests that the appeals process is not biased towards keeping the status quo and not upsetting the experts who delivered the original decision. that's a good thing.
     
  17. wb

    wb Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2009
    Posts:
    2,122
    Likes Received:
    47
    As it's a relatively similar procedure, it could be useful to compare the DRS figures to that of convictions in the UK:

    Criminal Cases Review Commission 2010/11 ('Outcome of referrals heard', p. 18).

    From a total of 33 referred convictions that actually got to the appeals stage, 20 had a positive outcome (~60%) and 13 were dismissed (~40%).

    Those figures may look high (50% higher than DRS based on it having only a 40% success rate), but only ~2.5% of all cases closed actually got through to the appeals stage where those figures apply.

    Couldn't seem to find a referenced figure for the percentage of all DRS decisions that are appealed, although I did only have a quick look. This news bulletin suggests on p. 8 it could be just 0.01%, far lower than for criminal convictions.
     
  18. anthony United Kingdom

    anthony Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2006
    Posts:
    1,775
    Likes Received:
    37
    Why is there an expectation? What sets those original decisions apart? If they were not appealed, they'd stand just like all the others? As I've said, £3,000+ VAT is a high enough price to pay to put most people off launching an appeal. Given you cannot introduce any new evidence etc, it boils down mainly to a complaint about the manner of the original decision, in which case Nominet should be accepting the appeal in the basis of a complaint, without cost, just like many other complaint procedures found elsewhere.

    40% of appeals overturned is a fact, but making one of the parties pay more independent experts for a review is a strange kind of 'good practice' in my book!

    A good thing? For independent decisions that an absolute requirement, not something to be thankful for!

    The DRS is not as independent as it should be, it's long overdue that it is removed from Nominet's scope of responsibility completely, something I suspect will happen sooner or later. And the appeals decision should always mirror the IPO model, where it can go to either an appointed person or the High Court.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2012
  19. safesys

    safesys Member

    Joined:
    May 2005
    Posts:
    14
    Likes Received:
    1
    I don't understand your point. The losing party gets to look at the decision and the basis upon which it was made - and if they believe the decision was made in error, they can then pay a relatively large sum to have it corrected. Ergo, they have an expectation of a win - it would be a waste of money to pay for a case that they don't really think has any chance of being overturned. If the appeals fee was a trivial amount it would be worth people taking more a "punt" approach to appeals - although a loss at appeal is more "serious" than a loss under a single expert so they may weigh up how it might reflect on them in addition to the cost.

    Individual experts can go off-piste and render poor decisions - a 3 person panel costs more to administer and the fee also acts as a fiscal filter for appeals to skew it towards winnable cases. Why wouldn't you want a means of having a low-cost initial single expert decision checked?

    we live in the real world - not utopia. the drs isn't perfect, but I'd take it over the udrp any day of the week.

    the whole point of the drs and all other dispute services, is that they are a relatively low cost and quick means of getting redress. The nominet approach with mediation and an in-built appeals process makes it a pretty balanced system on the whole.

    You throw things to the courts and you bring in cost, delays and damages. That would be a barrier for many small businesses to get justice on either side of the equation.

    I agree though that there needs to be a way for the courts to make a final determination as to whether the registrant is entitled to hold the domain or not under UK law.
     
    Last edited: Apr 1, 2012
  20. anthony United Kingdom

    anthony Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2006
    Posts:
    1,775
    Likes Received:
    37
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.