Dispute over .uk

[Harrison Fell]

Hi I am new to this forum but not new to selling domains. I have a quick question or like to
Hear people’s views on this situation.

 

[RobM]

Well if the sale was for the .co.uk and the uk was not registered at the time or mentioned in the deal then it is not a legal matter.

 

[lazarus]

These are now two different entities, but it is tricky because it looks like it was one entity at the start of your negotiations with the rights to the .uk belonging to the .co.uk owner.

 

[tifosi]

Personally, I think it's ethically a bit shit. I've been around the game for 15yrs and seen this a few times.

Disreputable, imo. Might not be a legal matter, as mentioned, but a drs might see it differently. Indeed if I was them that'd be my first port of call.

S

 

[Coldtrigger]

.

 

[Siusaidh]

... edited out for privacy

 

[ian]

Comes down to whether you owned the .uk domain or just the rights at the time? If just the rights, they should have been transferred with the .co.uk imo.

 

[RobM]

It wasn't a question of ethics. It was whether he can *legally* threaten action.

 

[diablo]

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the right to the .uk domain only applied to people who registered the .co.uk domain before the cut off date in 2014.

If someone bought the .co.uk domain in March 2019, were the rights of the original registrant transferable to the new registrant? Surely, as the new registration in the new registrant's name was after the cut-off date, it had no rights to the .uk?

Or (someone please help me) were transfers to new registrants counted as original registrations before the 2014 cut-off date.

Is a transfer to a new registrant a new registration? After all, the new registrant has to register it in his/her name.

Did Nominet state what happened in the event of transfers?

Rights transferred with the .co.uk unless selling registrant exercised the right before transfer was made.

 

[Harrison Fell]

Thanks

 

[keys]

It seems that when the sale was agreed, it included rights to .uk. The buyer was unaware of this until sometime after completion.

If this happened with sale of physical goods the position would be quite clear, the unusual situation (opportunity) with .uk rights does not change this.

I sold a domain for £6k this year. The buyer came back to me months later and asked for .uk As I had registered .uk back in 2014, he accepted that it would have to be a new purchase.

 

[poetry]

While the ethics per se may not have legal consequences the
'intention' will. the timing of your purchase will be key in assessing 'your
intent'. DRS panel may be split on this but in my opinion they will
rule in favour of the plaintiff. Why? Because at point of registration
you did not make your client aware of the ROR and sought to profit from that.

 

[poetry]

My understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) is that the right to the .uk domain only applied to people who registered the .co.uk domain before the cut off date in 2014.

If someone bought the .co.uk domain in March 2019, were the rights of the original registrant transferable to the new registrant? Surely, as the new registration in the new registrant's name was after the cut-off date, it had no rights to the .uk?

Or (someone please help me) were transfers to new registrants counted as original registrations before the 2014 cut-off date.

Is a transfer to a new registrant a new registration? After all, the new registrant has to register it in his/her name.

Did Nominet state what happened in the event of transfers?

No, you would have got the rights before the sale as they would have been transferrable

 

[Ben Thomas]

Personally, it's of my opinion that unless stated on the invoice, agreed before sale, mentioned verbally etc. that the .uk was included, then it simply wasn't. That's like buying a birthday cake and saying "Oh but birthday cakes need candles, where is mine?" even though the candles are on sale for £2.99 and didn't come with the cake. Secondly, this whole "I have the rights to the .uk if I own the .co.uk" ended in July this year. Furthermore, it's irrelevant because the .uk wasn't included in the sale.

tl;dr - The buyer of the .co.uk has no chance and under DRS I think they would see it the same as well. Make sure you can prove email conversations, screenshot stuff, show invoices etc. if there were recorded phone calls get them up too. But I think they have no grounds. Unless they have a trademark on the term, which (because you stated it was a generic domain) I don't think they will have.

Also, nice sale price man. Well done.

EDIT: Just noticed the sale was in March. What I said still applies and quite frankly, I think once you have executed the registration on those rights to the .uk, the domain becomes a separate entity as someone else mentioned above I think.

 

[Gill]

before I let it go I purchased the .uk so I Owned the rights. we did not to discuss that .uk was for sale . or was it on the invoice. Just 1 domain.

I had purchased the .uk before .co.uk was
Sold and transferred,

You're employing vague language, did you register the .uk before or after the initial sales enquiry? If it was after did you offer the .uk to the buyer?

Legally they haven't a leg to stand on, however, if your registration of the .uk was opportunistic with a view to having a second bite of the cherry down the line then I'd suggest that he's got every right to be pissed off because he's realised you've played him.

 

[Ben Thomas]

if your registration of the .uk was opportunistic with a view to having a second bite of the cherry down the line then I'd suggest that he's got every right to be pissed off because he's realised you've played him.

Isn't that what we're all hoping for when we register both? If by that you mean to say, if the registration of the .uk was intentionally registered and left out of the contract to go back into the client later on to upsell them the .uk, then yeah I agree with you. And I think a DRS will look for that deception as well. As someone mentioned it's your intent when registering the .uk which they will care more about.

 

[Gill]

I'm not suggesting he should have given the .uk for free and I do understand that some people will argue it's not the sellers job to point out that there's a new .uk extension. I agree to some extent but it's my personal view that prior to July 2019 there was a moral case for informing the buyer about the existence of the .uk and offer them the option to purchase it.

If he hadn't registered the .uk prior to the initial contact and the .uk wasn't mentioned then I'd argue the intent was to deceive?

 

[Ben Thomas]

Roger that. I agree that if the domain was registered during or after the contact with the client and he did not offer the .uk to the client, that it could be perceived as an abusive registration because of intent to deceive. I think legally, because of the terms of the contract I and the fact it didn't include the .uk, the complainant doesn't have any legal grounds. However, I think if they took it up with DRS it would perhaps come down to an abusive registration.

 

[Gill]

However, I think if they took it up with DRS it would perhaps come down to an abusive registration.

Sorry to be pedantic but I don't think it was an abusive registration because he had rights to the .uk at that time. This to me is a purely moral argument and I don't believe the complainant should be awarded the domain in a DRS.

 

[Ben Thomas]

But if the registration was made purely for the intent to sell the domain at a later date, is that not an abusive registration? Knowing that the client would own the .co.uk?