EMD predate awarded to newer business

[Stephen]

channel web story on crawleycomputercentre.co.uk

http://www.channelweb.co.uk/crn-uk/news/2288580/crawley-turf-war-resolved-in-favour-of-new-firm

Crawley turf war resolved in favour of new firm
Neighbouring computer centres bang heads over use of generic-sounding URLs
By Fleur Doidge

13 Aug 2013

A computer retailer in Crawley has lost the use of one of its registered domain names after a challenge from a newer channel company nearby with a similar business.

Saeed Moghul, managing director of Crawley computer centre Frontline Networks, told ChannelWeb he was very disappointed by the decision of domain name registrar Nominet, which ruled that his use of the domain was an "abusive registration".

He said he cannot understand why Nominet came to this decision as his was the preexisting business and the domain name is very generic.

"Everybody, any company, that has recognised the value of search engine optimisation and Google can lose the use of a URL as a result of this precedent," he said.

The disputed domain name, crawleycomputercentre.co.uk, was registered by Moghul's company in 2002, alongside "about 20" generic domains including crawleycomputers.co.uk, with a view to maximising Frontline Networks' appearance in local web search results.............

what about other generic and emd domains on search terms with no business when registered but there is a business now, is this a change in policy at Nominet?

 

[AssetDomains]

channel web story on crawleycomputercentre.co.uk

http://www.channelweb.co.uk/crn-uk/news/2288580/crawley-turf-war-resolved-in-favour-of-new-firm



what about other generic and emd domains on search terms with no business when registered but there is a business now, is this a change in policy at Nominet?

It will be interesting to read the case they are all published by nominet aren't they. Looks like this was not a simple passing of type complaint though with lots of prior history between the parties I'm guessing if they prepared a proper defense they would not have lost it.

 

[PaulGregory]

The piece is unreliable - it gives a 2002 reg date for the domain, but the WHOIS says 2007.

with no business when registered but there is a business now

If you use the WHOIS date and follow the other facts, there was a competitor business trading as Crawley Computer Centre when Frontline registered it. Just a different company running it. A "newer company" bought the "Crawley Computer Centre" trading entity from an older company. The domain reg pre-dates the new company by a matter of months.

If you approach the piece from the assumption that Nominet got it right, it makes more sense. There is no change in policy here. Given that the only quotes are from the disgruntled abusive registrant, it repeats arguments that have been dismissed.

The morals of the story are:
1) To avoid heartache, register the names you trade as before someone else does.
2) Don't register local competitors' trading names.
3) You can always moan to the press, even if you're in the wrong.

 

[grantw]

channel web story on crawleycomputercentre.co.uk

http://www.channelweb.co.uk/crn-uk/news/2288580/crawley-turf-war-resolved-in-favour-of-new-firm



what about other generic and emd domains on search terms with no business when registered but there is a business now, is this a change in policy at Nominet?

Have you read the decision? It's not straight forward at all:

The Complainant has traded under the name Crawley Computer Centre
since 2001, long before the Domain Name was registered.

etc etc etc etc

Plus the article is wrong with the registration date of the domain.

http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/resolving-domain-disputes/how-it-works/decisions-search

Grant

 

[Stephen]

Thanks

The piece is unreliable - it gives a 2002 reg date for the domain, but the WHOIS says 2007.

If you use the WHOIS date and follow the other facts, there was a competitor business trading as Crawley Computer Centre when Frontline registered it. Just a different company running it. A "newer company" bought the "Crawley Computer Centre" trading entity from an older company. The domain reg pre-dates the new company by a matter of months.

If you approach the piece from the assumption that Nominet got it right, it makes more sense. There is no change in policy here. Given that the only quotes are from the disgruntled abusive registrant, it repeats arguments that have been dismissed.

The morals of the story are:
1) To avoid heartache, register the names you trade as before someone else does.
2) Don't register local competitors' trading names.
3) You can always moan to the press, even if you're in the wrong.

Thanks for explaining the situation and using whois for dates (pity the journalist didn't)

Sorry I just read the article as have "Nominet" as Google alert for .uk news and I thought it was worth looking at, so posted it.

 

[PaulGregory]

I was brought up in a left-leaning but Daily Mail-reading household, so I am used to discounting the headline, opening line and overall impression of any story in favour of reassembling facts.

This story revolves around the difference between "newer business" and "newer Ltd company", and the article headline is thus vague when it says "newer firm"

I appreciate you sharing the story with us though. Apart from anything it nudged me into picking up a name off my maybe list.