"financial deterrent against cybersquatting"

[Whois-Search]

Funny how some people see "loser pays":

UK domain name dispute rules could change | The Register

He wouldn't be saying that if he got a £750 + VAT bill for name like bounce.co.uk

 

[rob]

Perhaps someone could ask the kieran mcarthy bloke to look into the other side of the arguement put over on here

if dodgy DRS decisions / conflicting points ended up on the front page of El Reg then Nominet Towers might have a proper look

 

[Edwin]

If they also implement ALL the other changes i.e. explicitly say that parking domains, offering to sell them and owning a lot of domains doesn't make you a cybersquatter (I know it doesn't - but up until now Nominet don't seem to!) then I think loser pays isn't too bad.

After all, if the domain's truly generic the revised rules make it much less likely that the "attacking" party will be able to provide the burden of proof, even if they have a TM.

At the same time, loser pays will hopefully put a dampner on those who deliberately register TM coined names etc and give the rest of us a bad name.

 

[retired_member16]

At the same time, loser pays will hopefully put a dampner on those who deliberately register TM coined names etc and give the rest of us a bad name.

Id like to be the first to offer my sincere apologies to our friend here.

I will dispose of my portfolio immediately and birch myself into submission.

 

[olebean]

Edwin

That is naive, after all one mans generic is another TM. The measures of "large" portfolio are not determined which poses the question who will decide what constitutes "large" hmm the experts per chance?

OB

 

[Edwin]

I take it you glossed over my use of the word "coined"?

"Micro" is generic. "Soft" is generic. "Microsoft" is clearly coined, since it doesn't exist in any dictionary nor was it in everyday usage before Microsoft (the company) came along.

Another example: "Red" is generic. "Bull" is generic. "Red Bull" is coined.

That's what I was talking about. That, and of course companies with names that are entirely made up (Verizon, Accenture etc.) which are also blatant TM domains.

 

[olebean]

Edwin

I didnt gloss over anything, I spoke of reality rather than ideology...

i.e. fine cheeses? etc etc


The changes proposed may not alter the decision made in that case or others like it... In other words the lack of inclusion for recognition or allowance for new brands within a term/classification of a TM are distinct issues...

What concerns me is the suggestion by Nominet that PPC is a business model yet that model is less equal to a "pure" business models and WILL! remain so...

On another point, the collection of domains that some corporates i.e. BBC are registering, does that make them part of a similar category as a cybersquatter(the false interpretation of cybersquatter)?

Does PPC equate to a business model similar to that of an advertising hoarding on the side of a building or even a flyer? The only individuals that do not recognise PPC as an equal business model is nominet and their cronies (experts)..

As for buying domains for the purpose of selling... Any business that does not include an exit strategy, which includes selling the domain(s) is not entirely sane.

 

[retired_member6]

I take it you glossed over my use of the word "coined"?

"Micro" is generic. "Soft" is generic. "Microsoft" is clearly coined, since it doesn't exist in any dictionary nor was it in everyday usage before Microsoft (the company) came along.

Another example: "Red" is generic. "Bull" is generic. "Red Bull" is coined.

That's what I was talking about. That, and of course companies with names that are entirely made up (Verizon, Accenture etc.) which are also blatant TM domains.

I couldn't get it into one idiot of a company owner's head that I was supplying a service and he got his legal team on to me demanding I drop the domain, I had to reiterate again, what don't you understand about costs and the service I am providing to you? it did get me fuming, there's probably a DRS or some such on the way but I offered a service, any other domainer would have charged him ten times the amount and invariably do.

TM domain or not, I provide a service, whilst I don't chase TM, I do pick up domains I think a company might need or want for themselves for the future. But no, it would seem they'd rather pay legal fees than £100 for a domain, idiots. I wasn't fuming for long, their loss.

 

[retired_member6]

As for this bit

The consultation suggests changing the Policy to make clear that evidence of reselling a domain name or pay-per-click revenue on the website of a disputed domain is not necessarily evidence of abusive registration. Nor is ownership of a large portfolio of domain names; and nor is evidence of reselling domain names.

It also includes options for changing the fee structure and introducing a system where the losing party pays for the decision. That could deter cybersquatting – where a domain name is registered for profit, in many cases through the display of ads. At present there is little deterrent for would-be cybersquatters because a trade mark owner is more likely to approach Nominet than a court. There are no suggestions for how such a change would be enforced against a losing party.

The day I see £750 profit through PPC from a domain is the day I might agree, until then, what a stupid idea. As for the rest, it's about time Nominet changed that blatently obvious flawed part in their policy. No deterrent? three strikes and you're in bother and or losing your £6.09 and the time to fight a DRS, you don't call that a deterrent? I'd like to see the author defend one, numbnuts.

No doubt someone will pop up and say 'costs of business' again, and I'll laugh and say "just 'cause you're rich." And as for how nominet are going to get this £750... what will they do if you don't pay? take you to court... more money... then sue you for the costs... more money and then threaten to take all your domains off you... more hassle or suspend all your domain holdings until you do pay... more hassle.

Yes think it through nominet.

 

[Beasty]

Funny how some people see "loser pays":

UK domain name dispute rules could change | The Register

He wouldn't be saying that if he got a £750 + VAT bill for name like bounce.co.uk

The Register took this piece direct from Outlaw.com - an IP newswire from a firm of solicitors. It is a good newswire, but like the majority of the panel of Experts, it comes from a particular viewpoint and represents a particular client base.

 

[Beasty]

If they also implement ALL the other changes i.e. explicitly say that parking domains, offering to sell them and owning a lot of domains doesn't make you a cybersquatter (I know it doesn't - but up until now Nominet don't seem to!) then I think loser pays isn't too bad.

After all, if the domain's truly generic the revised rules make it much less likely that the "attacking" party will be able to provide the burden of proof, even if they have a TM.

At the same time, loser pays will hopefully put a dampner on those who deliberately register TM coined names etc and give the rest of us a bad name.

What the consultation says is that having PPC, open offers for sale or large potrfolios does not "necesarily" make a registration abusive/the registrant a cybersquatter. That's quite a different thing from explicitly making that business model acceptable.

Put it another way, if one said that speeding, drink driving and having no insurance did not "necessarily" mean you should be banned from driving - would you take that to mean that such conduct was endorsed by the legal system. The answer is of course no - and the question may simply be turned on it's head to say "these things do not "necessarily" mean he's a cybersquatter, but they are indications we have to consider as evidence that he may well be".

I suspect even if that passage makes it into the DRS and is read as one might hope, it will have as much weight as 3(b) does now - that non use of a domain is not "in itself" evidence of an Abusive Registration. It won't save you if the Expert wants to transfer the domain and there is a world of difference from saying non use (or PPC use, or for sale use, or warehousing use) is a bar to a claim of abusive registration.

 

[retired_member6]

What the consultation says is that having PPC, open offers for sale or large potrfolios does not "necesarily" make a registration abusive/the registrant a cybersquatter. That's quite a different thing from explicitly making that business model acceptable.

Put it another way, if one said that speeding, drink driving and having no insurance did not "necessarily" mean you should be banned from driving - would you take that to mean that such conduct was endorsed by the legal system. The answer is of course no - and the question may simply be turned on it's head to say "these things do not "necessarily" mean he's a cybersquatter, but they are indications we have to consider as evidence that he may well be".

I suspect even if that passage makes it into the DRS and is read as one might hope, it will have as much weight as 3(b) does now - that non use of a domain is not "in itself" evidence of an Abusive Registration. It won't save you if the Expert wants to transfer the domain and there is a world of difference from saying non use (or PPC use, or for sale use, or warehousing use) is a bar to a claim of abusive registration.

Look, it's simple, the policy simply has to reflect what and who exists, it has to state domainers are acceptable, selling domains is acceptable and parking domains is acceptable, anything less than that and a consultation is pointless.

 

[Beasty]

Look, it's simple, the policy simply has to reflect what and who exists, it has to state domainers are acceptable, selling domains is acceptable and parking domains is acceptable, anything less than that and a consultation is pointless.

That view is not necessarily shared by all, in particular those who enforce the DRS and their clients. It is one reason why one should now raise the question "Why retain the DRS?".

 

[olebean]

Look, it's simple, the policy simply has to reflect what and who exists, it has to state domainers are acceptable, selling domains is acceptable and parking domains is acceptable, anything less than that and a consultation is pointless.

I disagree..

Nominet are being "seen" to be consulting ... interestingly I cannot understand why the consultation link is no longer on the front page.. If anyone from Nominet is reading it might be prudent to put it back...

The acceptability of domainers comes down to the purification of the internet... Was .co.uk intended for "busines" or use or not and how do you define business... Was it ther to create new activity, do Nominet want an extention full of PPC?

On a personnal level its bloody irritating when old sites you spent hours searching for a couple of years ago are now PPC sites... On a moral level I find the current inequity in policy verging on the corrupt...

That is the DRS ~ the experts (cough) their lack of appropriate knowledge ironically nominet provide training

The T&C

Privacy policy ~ that includes production of addresses in DRS material

I could go on but I need to find time to write a response to the consultation..

 

[retired_member6]

That view is not necessarily shared by all, in particular those who enforce the DRS and their clients. It is one reason why one should now raise the question "Why retain the DRS?".

Well it's either right or it isn't, the people at nominet need to get a backbone and let people argue the facts and not some silly notion that "ooo selling domains is bad and parking domains is naughty, ummm I'm telling and will get the domain for 'ck all."

 

[olebean]

Well it's either right or it isn't, the people at nominet need to get a backbone and let people argue the facts and not some silly notion that "ooo selling domains is bad and parking domains is naughty, ummm I'm telling and will get the domain for 'ck all."

When is parking parking? Regging through eurodns? when Eurodns get the parking rev.. is that parking? Does the burden of proof lay with Nominet et al and the complainant to prove that the registered holder is recieveing revenue? At the moment no they don't... Guilty ma lawd?

Perhaps the DRS is quasi-court better served for justice in Iraq