DRS on the way

[foz]

I do have a question for Nominet, why do they accept complaints without proof of trademark status? e.g. a trademark certificate.

Surely that should be a prerequisite?

 

[SF]

Cheers for all the help guys, I am going through all the points and sending them to my solictor who thinks we have a good case, but shame we just never got that reply in.

 

[wiposucks]

The "problem" ,i.e. unfairness , of the DRS is that although the Complainant can use a Trademark to invoke a DRS a Respondent cannot use Trademark LAW to defeat said DRS, otherwise the Complainants would not win 90% of time, as they know full well.
Since the Intel case in the ECJ the task of proving passing off etc is much harder ,and thus the easy route for companies is DRS.

WS

 

[retired_member12]

The DRS is a lousy system to be honest. Did you know that neither the complainant nor the respondant are entitled to get to see what information is passed on to the 'expert' by Nominet, they can leave out as much or as little as they want, there is no way of knowing!

 

[wiposucks]

Which is exactly why I do not want to see Gilbert or Cowley get anymore power ,as they are seeking. They both are the type that supports big business and domainers are scum to them. Look at Gilbert, a senior partner in Wragge & Co, and you can guess who he would support in a DRS against a domainer, and he's in ultimate charge of the DRS . One day they will meet someone that take them to High Court and JR's the DRS decision on grounds of unfairness.

WS