- Joined
- Mar 28, 2005
- Posts
- 1,602
- Reaction score
- 43
Just thought I'd brain dump a few DRS thoughts as I can't sleep...
I'm no DRS guru but the below is based on what I know - if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me
.
The DRS policy says that criticism sites aren't necessarily abusive (not an exact quote). But it's been pretty much established in previous cases that, in order to keep the name, you really need to have the domain name companysucks.co.uk instead of company.co.uk.
The most recent decision of this sort that I can recall is mossandcoleman.co.uk (drs link here and brief Acorn discussion here).
However today I read the DRS decision for knightslettings.co.uk (linky here).
In my mind, having read both decisions, the cases have pretty much exactly the same circumstances (ie discruntled customer/client registers domain name and posts details of their beef AND they don't use it for commercial purposes) and yet the experts in each have come up with different decisions.
Each expert in the two decisions gives quite detailed background as to their decision and it's interesting to see how they both back them up.
But the fact remains in that, as far as I can see it, they have both interpreted the policy differently for what are effectively the same circumstances.
One of the experts is an IP lawyer and the other a Barrister - which is "correct"???
I'm no DRS guru but the below is based on what I know - if I'm wrong please feel free to correct me
.The DRS policy says that criticism sites aren't necessarily abusive (not an exact quote). But it's been pretty much established in previous cases that, in order to keep the name, you really need to have the domain name companysucks.co.uk instead of company.co.uk.
The most recent decision of this sort that I can recall is mossandcoleman.co.uk (drs link here and brief Acorn discussion here).
However today I read the DRS decision for knightslettings.co.uk (linky here).
In my mind, having read both decisions, the cases have pretty much exactly the same circumstances (ie discruntled customer/client registers domain name and posts details of their beef AND they don't use it for commercial purposes) and yet the experts in each have come up with different decisions.
Each expert in the two decisions gives quite detailed background as to their decision and it's interesting to see how they both back them up.
But the fact remains in that, as far as I can see it, they have both interpreted the policy differently for what are effectively the same circumstances.
One of the experts is an IP lawyer and the other a Barrister - which is "correct"???
