DRS twice?

[disruptive]

I had a DRS and the complainant dropped the complainant and now I find a new complaint. How can this be possible...in my eyes are abusing the system. Has anyone had any related experience?

 

[retired_member6]

It maybe connected, the first trying to find out your arguement before presenting another. If you can prove it you should win outright.

 

[rob]

What would happen if two large portfolio owners each say open 1000 DRS claims against each other - free to do , and requires a fair amount of work Nominets end.

Perhaps some of the hassle that domain owners suffer may be understood better in Nominet towers

 

[tifosi]

What would happen if two large portfolio owners each say open 1000 DRS claims against each other - free to do , and requires a fair amount of work Nominets end.

Perhaps some of the hassle that domain owners suffer may be understood better in Nominet towers

you offerin'?

 

[keys]

Would you believe that one large comapny has used DRS twice to recover the same name - then still did not renew it. I wonder how long it will be until their third DRS. I doubt the "experts" will be impressed, but probably grateful for the extra work.

 

[Beasty]

There are rules about this - but they largely relate to completed cases. Even they are possible - as the 1&1 cases show.

What you describe is akin to "DRS tasting" - throw out a line, see what you get back and then revise before submitting again. It can not happen under the UDRP - you have to pay your fee and start the process towards a decision there.

The rules should make it clear that if you start a claim, get a defence and then drop it - then unless the situation changes significantly (e.g. change of use or user) then you've used up your claim on that domain.

The best you can hope for is to highlight what has happened and unless there has been a material change on your side, the right expert should take a dim view of their tactics.

You could also start a petition on here calling for the rules to be changed during the current review - I'll put my hand up for that one.

 

[disruptive]

I am a bit annoyed, but not that much. The guys doing the complaining I think are simply time-wasters...I will make it clear their tactics and their generally pernicous behaviour.

 

[Beasty]

I am a bit annoyed, but not that much. The guys doing the complaining I think are simply time-wasters...I will make it clear their tactics and their generally pernicous behaviour.

Thye can of course keep sending in Complaints until you are away/ill/the post is slow - then they will have no response to deal with. If the facts are clear enough, maybe you should ask Nominet to keep a standard response on file for you! :twisted:

 

[disruptive]

This must be a form of abuse...

I feel like a double jeopardy case.

 

[Beasty]

This must be a form of abuse...

I feel like a double jeopardy case.

The guy in bernardmatthews.co.uk suffered quadruple jeopardy (Old DRS - won; high court - won; new DRS - lost; court again - settled) and each of those went to a decision/hearing/settlement. You have got a way to go before you break the record - but you are right that systematic abuse of this type is not only allowed by the DRS - but to some extent encouraged...

I quote from Nominet's standard letter when the Complainant is asked to pay the fee for an Expert or allow the matter to drop:

If your client decides not to pay for a decision

The domain name will not be transferred. We will close the DRS case and take no further action. Your client will be able to start another DRS dispute later, if they want to.

Not even a hint of sanction or prohibition of such conduct - in fact almost an invitation to drop it now and try again later. If the Complainant had been obliged to pay their fee up front (which even the imperfect UDRP requires) then the Respondent could pocket the £750 +VAT for their trouble and the Complainant's right to bring a future DRS should be expressly (and publicly) limited to any new facts that arise subsequently. Parties should only get one bite at the cherry, if the system wants to be taken seriously.

I invite Gordon or any other director/representative of Nominet to defend their conduct in this type of situation.

 

[grandin]

don't see a problem

I personally don't see a problem with allowing further complaints apart from wasting peoples time. If someone has rights to a name and another is abusing that right then this talk is all irrelevant. The problem arises because rights are changing hands even though the complainant does not have unequivocal rights ie. generic terms

Lee

 

[Beasty]

I personally don't see a problem with allowing further complaints apart from wasting peoples time. If someone has rights to a name and another is abusing that right then this talk is all irrelevant. The problem arises because rights are changing hands even though the complainant does not have unequivocal rights ie. generic terms

Lee

If they are comfortable with their case - and by inference their rights - why file a complaint and then back away - only to re-file again later.

Yes it wastes time - which can be a drain on resources, especially if the domain is valuable and the respondent chooses to pay to defend it. It also allows for a claimant to hope to eventually find a time when a response is not filed (eg someone is away). Further it gives the complainant a chance to "test his argument" - see the defence - revise his claim and have another go.

Do you really think that is fair Lee?

If you start a claim in court, ge the defence and discontinue the claim you would first of all have to pay the costs of the first action. You would also need to explain why you started, stopped and then started again.

 

[bb99]

Unless the policy says that complainants can't do this (it doesn't does it?) then the Experts will surely be at liberty to deal with such cases as they see fit... which will invariably mean that they'll let it through.

I'm writing to BBC Watchdog

 

[disruptive]

I have the response from Suzanne Begley:

Thank you for your email.

The complainant has previously submitted a complaint and at that time
decided not to proceed to the Independent Expert Stage. However , they
have now submitted a new complaint. Because an expert decision has not
previously been made, the complainant is allowed to re-complaint about the
same domain name.

Kind Regards,

Suzanne Begley
Dispute Resolution Service
Legal Team

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Informal Mediation period is carried out in a Confidential and Without
Prejudice environment, as per section 7 of the DRS Procedure. This covers
the use of information gained by either party in the mediation process.

7b. Negotiations conducted between the Parties during Informal
Mediation (including any information obtained from or in connection to
negotiations) shall be confidential, that is they will not be shown to the
Expert. Neither we nor any Party may reveal details of such negotiations
to any third parties unless a court of competent jurisdiction orders
disclosure, or we or either Party are required to do so by applicable laws
or regulations. Neither Party shall use any information gained during
mediation for any ulterior or collateral purpose or include it in any
submission likely to be seen by any Expert, judge or arbitrator in this
dispute or any later dispute or litigation.

 

[domainking]

I am a bit annoyed, but not that much. The guys doing the complaining I think are simply time-wasters...I will make it clear their tactics and their generally pernicous behaviour.

Disruptive

What to do is charge them for your time and effort
send a invoice to the other side for you opening and reading the letter.
and charge them £750 for doing thi.
you are running a commercial business and you have a right to charge firms for senting you letters that take up your time.

also would recommend before you answer anything ask the other side first to supply this information before you lodge your defence.
what names the have
when they where registered
what firms they used

If they refuse to answer these questions then you cannot lodge your defence
against DRS as you need this info for your defence and if they refuse
then supply that info to nominet.
It would be intresting to see where they stand on this
also in a court of law you have more than 14 days to lodge your defence
and for nominet to ask you to lodge your papers in about 15 days check out
european law artical 4 forced labour

also check out where europes stand on european competion rules about running a cartel or monopoly it makes very good reading

 

[grandin]

abuse

I agree Beasty but if the complainant has almost unequivocal rights then you can't deny them.... I am sure you would agree a name (for example) like fedex could not be owned by anyone but fedex?

The issue, which I am sure we don't disagree on, is the fact that true generic terms can be manipulated out of the hands of registrants because the registrants are not qualified trade mark attorneys and do not understand the law in relation to IP.

Furthermore, Nominet do not make or recommend to their clients to gain legal advice prior to becoming a registrant and Nominet do not make any attempt to pre-vet domain name registrations despite 10 years of DRS history.

How can any organisation pass the buck when clearly they are keeping the buck....reg fees!

Lee

 

[Beasty]

I agree Beasty but if the complainant has almost unequivocal rights then you can't deny them.... I am sure you would agree a name (for example) like fedex could not be owned by anyone but fedex?

The issue, which I am sure we don't disagree on, is the fact that true generic terms can be manipulated out of the hands of registrants because the registrants are not qualified trade mark attorneys and do not understand the law in relation to IP.

Agreed Lee - but I seriously doubt the domain here is something like fedex. If they had started a DRS, I seriously doubt that they would have stopped halfway through.

However someone with a weaker case might well choose to probe away and see what they pull in. Then have another - improved - go. They might also hope to catch a registrant with their guard down - by filing close to Easter the chances of someone being away are rather greater....

 

[disruptive]

Did I say that.....whoops.

 

[Beasty]

That would be disruptive! :shock:

Sorry, couldn't resist...

 

[olebean]

Perhaps not the wisest move to suggest it on acorn