DRS on the way

[SF]

Hi Guys,

I know have expert on the case, removed incase google spidered..

 

[keys]

It appears that they have little or no basis for a valid complaint, based on what you say. That applies to many communications I have received.

A clear statement of the facts and DRS policy is usually sufficient to resolve matters, however threatening they may seem at the outset.

Let us know how you get on.

 

[grantw]

If you've missed the deadline for a response db I would contact nom. and see if they'll extend it for you. Failing that it will go to a summary decision and you'll be at the mercy of the expert.

Grant

 

[afx]

If I was you I'd use ***** and bin this thread. You dont want the complainant reading this and getting prior knowledge of your defence or educating themselves on how poor their own defence is and subsequently changing it.

pm me if you want ***** name.

 

[SF]

Thanks guys,

 

[dashu1]

If you read though some of the decisions people can still win when they don't reply (I spent a lot of time looking at them myself recently when I was threatened with one).

They have to prove that you're infringing on their trademark and that you've registered it maliciously, and it doesn't look like they can do that, so they should lose.

If it's a fruit and you have lots of other food related names then that should be enough to prove that you're simply following a pattern that is already established (from what I've read of other drs's where the complainant lost), so I'd send in the details.

If you registered any similar names on the same day, or within a day or 2 then that should really seal it - since you clearly weren't just after their name (again, from what I've read in previous decisions).

 

[mojoco]

If you value the domain speak to an expert

Adam Taylor is good, not cheap but good.

www.adlexsolicitors.co.uk

Internet Law | Domain Name Disputes | Domain Name Dispute | Lawyer

 

[SF]

Thanks guys this is brill, I will show you the types of fruit and veg names I have to show you.

 

[SF]

If you value the domain speak to an expert

Adam Taylor is good, not cheap but good.

Internet Law | Domain Name Disputes | Domain Name Dispute | Lawyer

Internet Law | Domain Name Disputes | Domain Name Dispute | Lawyer

Cheers I will give them a call,

 

[foz]

They sound like a pack of bullies to me.

If you still have a chance reply with a response. You can do this on-line by logging into your account and uploading a .doc file.

Don't assume the Expert knows about all the aspects of the domain business.

Quote cases in the past that have been favourable to respondents. I believe verbatim.co.uk has some good material in it. e.g. "not bad faith to park and sell domains". Also cyclone.co.uk has some nuggets.

 

[dashu1]

The verbatim one is a good one, I also found autoclaimsdirect interesting too.

They sound like a pack of bullies to me.

If you still have a chance reply with a response. You can do this on-line by logging into your account and uploading a .doc file.

Don't assume the Expert knows about all the aspects of the domain business.

Quote cases in the past that have been favourable to respondents. I believe verbatim.co.uk has some good material in it. e.g. "not bad faith to park and sell domains". Also cyclone.co.uk has some nuggets.

 

[foz]

Appeals ghd.co.uk, mercer.co.uk & oasis.co.uk.

Mercer.co.uk - Expert stated;

"Trading in domain names for profit is a well established business and unexceptionable."

unexceptionable = completely acceptable or beyond reproach.

 

[bensd]

unexceptionable = completely acceptable or beyond reproach.

Thanks for that. I'm sure there would be other thickos like me who would have needed to look that up

 

[foz]

Thanks for that. I'm sure there would be other thickos like me who would have needed to look that up

I used Google define:

 

[wiposucks]

Hmm, I would say that unexceptional means "commonplace/practice", unless he meant to say "unacceptable" lol.

WS

 

[retired_member12]

Getting back to the point in hand, I find it hard to take on board the mentality of a company that offers to buy a domain name from DB in the first place, but just because it didn't like the price, it decides that selling is suddenly wrong and issues a DRS claim against him instead, citing selling domains within the claim as being wrong. Cheeky bleeders!

 

[foz]

Getting back to the point in hand, I find it hard to take on board the mentality of a company that offers to buy a domain name from DB in the first place, but just because it didn't like the price, it decides that selling is suddenly wrong and issues a DRS claim against him instead, citing selling domains within the claim as being wrong. Cheeky bleeders!

An offer that was the same as a summary decision. But I agree.

 

[retired_member12]

An offer that was the same as a summary decision...

Hmmm, good point. I wonder if they realise the price of a full decision?

 

[bluerock]

Getting back to the point in hand, I find it hard to take on board the mentality of a company that offers to buy a domain name from DB in the first place, but just because it didn't like the price, it decides that selling is suddenly wrong and issues a DRS claim against him instead, citing selling domains within the claim as being wrong. Cheeky bleeders!

I had a d r s last month after sedo negotiations broke down!
I wanted them to pay for expert but they backed down.
Best thing is they then emailed and said okay we'll pay sedo price!!!!

Planks

 

[foz]

Hmmm, good point. I wonder if they realise the price of a full decision?

It does seem to be explained well Help

What I don't like is that if an ill conceived Complaint (on the notion it will only cost £200) is laid, the Respondent has to go to considerable cost and time to file a response (as they only have one shot to put their argument across).

Whereas when it was a flat £750, Complainants gave it more thought before proceeding.