DRS 07607 rottentomatoes.co.uk

[Whois-Search]

It seems the .com wanted the .co.uk (which was parked) = Summary Transfer

DRS 07607

 

[GreyWing]

Haha that is quality

 

[ratboy]

Friday tea time DRS case?

 

[foz]

Can someone please clarify.

If a response is filed to a complaint, does that mean that the complainant has to use the expert option (£750) only?

 

[foz]

The Complainant did have the only 3 TM's @ IPO Intellectual Property Office - Trade marks - find by mark text or image

 

[retired_member34]

I've obviously missed a big change here, the Summary Decision.

If there is no response to a case then the "expert" does not have to show any reason behind the decision, just a tick box to show they have decided, is that correct? To what lengths do they go to try to contact the respondant?

 

[Edwin]

I think this particular case fits the "elevator rule" anyway i.e. can any rational observer reach the same conclusion in the time it takes to ride an elevator up to the top of a tall building. Clear cybersquatting, gives our industry a bad name (You can bet that there would be ZERO, nil, none, no, nada value at all to the expression "rotten tomatoes" if it weren't for the massive movie reviews site).

In my mind, if it really fits the "elevator rule" then the judgement could be as short as "Respondent loses" as onlookers know the argument behind that conclusion.

 

[retired_member34]

I think this particular case fits the "elevator rule" anyway i.e. can any rational observer reach the same conclusion in the time it takes to ride an elevator up to the top of a tall building. Clear cybersquatting, gives our industry a bad name (You can bet that there would be ZERO, nil, none, no, nada value at all to the expression "rotten tomatoes" if it weren't for the massive movie reviews site).

In my mind, if it really fits the "elevator rule" then the judgement could be as short as "Respondent loses" as onlookers know the argument behind that conclusion.

Maybe, I will never defend cybersquatting, but it seems dangerous to allow decisions without showing the reasoning behind. I had not seen the site at rottentomatoes.co.uk so cannot see if or how it was abusive. Now it is impossible for me to judge the merits of the decision. The decision could be absolutely spot on, but how can I tell without record of the reason?

If you start taking domains away from people because of value then it is a very dangerous path. There are many domains with zero value to a domain professional such as yourself, but others may wish to hold on to.

I've obviously missed this step change, and it has probably been debated at length, it just seems a retrograde step to me.

 

[retired_member12]

...I had not seen the site at rottentomatoes.co.uk so cannot see if or how it was abusive...

Check out the Nov '07 update here:
http://web.archive.org/web/*/http://www.rottentomatoes.co.uk
Looks abusive to me.

 

[Edwin]

My point is not domains with zero value per se, it's domains whose value CLEARLY lies from the site they're squatting on because it's impossible that a rational observer would have thought to register that particular domain name failing the existence of the site/company that is creating the BRAND interest in the domain.

If there was a very famous company called "tomatoes" I would have said that the owner of tomatoes.co.uk had every right to maintain ownership of the domain name (as long as they weren't deliberately infringing on that famous company in some way) as it's a pure generic word, but "rotten tomatoes" has no value of any kind - the only reason anyone reading this thread mentally assigns even a penny of value to rottentomatoes.co.uk is because of the existence of the long-established site at rottentomatoes.com.

Any other rationalisation is a post-facto position that's subconsciously being influenced because of the HUGE popularity of the aforesaid rottentomatoes.com.

 

[retired_member34]

Edwin, as always you give the brain a good work out.

My only problem with the summary decision is that it gives no paper trail, or at least not a publicly visible one. In a year's time to look at this case the public cannot see why it was abusive (I do not count archive.org, these can be removed on request, and are unreliable at best). That does not mean it was not abusive, just that I cannot see it, not can any other member of the public.

My point is not domains with zero value per se, it's domains whose value CLEARLY lies from the site they're squatting on because it's impossible that a rational observer would have thought to register that particular domain name failing the existence of the site/company that is creating the BRAND interest in the domain.

To me in rottentomatoes.co.uk had no monetary value exactly because of rottentomatoes.com, and I wish this was seen more often. Any domain that is in great danger of infringing a TM should be zero monetary value.

However, that does not prevent someone setting up say, a blog on allotments called that. This may not be a very good case to argue the point, as if there was a blog such as the above I assume they would not have won the case. But I cannot see this, there is no documentation to show what is was, only a check box to state it was abusive. I have to trust the "expert", and this is something I am not comfortable with.

Any other rationalisation is a post-facto position that's subconsciously being influenced because of the HUGE popularity of the aforesaid rottentomatoes.com.

Just to note, I had never heard of rottentomatoes.com before reading this thread. Perhaps if the domain in question was apple.co.uk I would not be arguing.

 

[foz]

My point is not domains with zero value per se, it's domains whose value CLEARLY lies from the site they're squatting on because it's impossible that a rational observer would have thought to register that particular domain name failing the existence of the site/company that is creating the BRAND interest in the domain.

Rottentomatoes.co.uk was registered prior to any Trademark status on "rottentomatoes" for the UK market.

I think what let them down was its use - displaying ringtone links (according to archive.org).

 

[GreyWing]

My problem with the Summary DRS is that it could lead to people trawling through death notices and PRSS'ing people to find out what domains they owned and then drs'ing them.

Hard to respond to when your dead isn't it, bang you lose your domain to some sicko. Nominet don't know that you are no longer on this great earth and as far as they know you just failed to respond.

As we seen a few months ago, tradgically Khalid leaving us, what if some sicko had drs'd him and his wife and kid lost the name beacuse nobody repsonded?

In my view the Summary DRS is illegal and morally wrong. There has to be a much harsher financial penalty on the complainant should they lose. They can't keep firing these things off for £10 a go and take their chances.

I imagine that should one of us lose and important name due to the postman taking the letter to the wrong door then it's going to court. Nominet send me 30 emails a day, easy for me to miss one?

 

[retired_member12]

My only problem with the summary decision is that it gives no paper trail, or at least not a publicly visible one....That does not mean it was not abusive, just that I cannot see it, not can any other member of the public...

That's because this is a private company running their own publically unaccountable system. You will only get that level of divulgence with an overhaul of the DRS process, or taking the matter to Court, or leverage on Government on the back of the Digital Britain findings and recommendations. The latter seems the least hardest approach at the moment, but that's for longball players, don't expect anything to happen overnight there!

 

[retired_member12]

Hard to respond to when your dead isn't it...

I was pondering over this the other day. In all seriousness, if you are a portfolio owner, with some real gems too, and you drop dead tomorrow, is there really anyone left behind to look after your years of hard work and valuable graft. There must be quite a few UK domainers whos portfolios are realistically in the 5-7 digit £ range. Has anyone actually made provision for this themselves?

 

[Edwin]

I was pondering over this the other day. In all seriousness, if you are a portfolio owner, with some real gems too, and you drop dead tomorrow, is there really anyone left behind to look after your years of hard work and valuable graft. There must be quite a few UK domainers whos portfolios are realistically in the 5-7 digit £ range. Has anyone actually made provision for this themselves?

It's not a perfect solution (far from it) but I have left details with a trusted friend who also does a lot of web stuff, and he has in turn left details of his domains/websites with me in a sealed envelope.

 

[GreyWing]

Yes it's one I'm starting to work out now what to do with these things, especially as out to Afghan in March 2011. Hopefully not see you chariots of doom DRS'ing me if my face appears on the news. I guess they are going to get their chance to get taliban.co.uk back face to face

Nope seriously I don't think anyone on here would do that, but it's the people off this forum that concern me.

But we all have a lot of value tied up that we would like to go to our families as easy as possible and somehow let them make as much as possible from them with minimal effort.

But I think that if someone was to sell them on behalf of my family I think 30-40% would be a fair amount for their efforts.

 

[RampageJackson]

Depends on the portfolio I guess. I wouldn't give someone 40% to deal with selling all of mine. If your portfolio consists of limited numbers, high value, then its way way easier to dispose of than if you have hundreds/thousands of £xxx domains. I would assume domains can be left in a will like any other asset.

I've made absolutely no provisions for something like this myself - neither "real world" or internet assets. At some point I'll deal with it. I guess if I die first, then I've got bigger things to worry about...

 

[retired_member12]

Is it an asset though in the eyes of the law?

 

[RampageJackson]

I'm no solicitor, but I would assume that its an asset in the eyes of the law. Certainly plenty people have been dragged through court in relation to domain names. This thread is boring me already, if it gets to the point where this is a real concern for me, I'm dead already anyway. So with that, I'm out, unsubscribing thread !