forsey.org.uk DRS 4113

[Whois-Search]

Another interesting one:

The requirement to demonstrate Rights under the Policy is not a particularly high threshold test. Under English Law, rights in a name or mark can be protected by registered trade marks, or unregistered rights such as the entitlement to bring a claim for passing off to protect goodwill inherent in any such name or mark.
Here, the Complainant is effectively claiming Rights in his surname.

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/11222_forsey.pdf

I agree with the decision as the "Respondent" had stuck his face on it:

This site's content is limited to a single page as follows:-
"Terry Forsey
"Here is a link to his mugshot.

However where does this abuse start and end? Could I DRS www.bennett.org.uk with no website?

 

[olebean]

750 + vat wasted?

Value for the domain? reg fee?

 

[Beasty]

750 + vat wasted?

Value for the domain? reg fee?

Again this "non-exhaustive" list comes up. It should be clear and exhaustive in the Policy - not something for Experts to extend at a whim. If the Policy means to say "likelyhood of confusion" rather than requiring evidence of actual confusion, then it should say so.

"Likelyhood of confusion" is a legal concept where confusion does not even mean confusion in the normal sense - so that is not going to please the plain English brigade. In fact I can't see how people can continue to pretend that it is a simple non-legal system anymore.

 

[sneezycheese]

Again this "non-exhaustive" list comes up. It should be clear and exhaustive in the Policy - not something for Experts to extend at a whim. If the Policy means to say "likelyhood of confusion" rather than requiring evidence of actual confusion, then it should say so.

"Likelyhood of confusion" is a legal concept where confusion does not even mean confusion in the normal sense - so that is not going to please the plain English brigade. In fact I can't see how people can continue to pretend that it is a simple non-legal system anymore.

...Talking of Crystal Marks, I am now confused - the Nominet contract (T&C's) has a Crystal Mark which includes the DRS policy and therefore logically must form part of the document in some way - but according to Lesley Cowley the DRS policy doesn't have a Crystal Mark - logically, how can this be???

Is there scope to sue The Plain English Campaign for Negligence or something, if upon complaint they do not review and subsequently riscind the mark for this document?

I need to get to the botom of this, so any help would be greatly appreciated!

Regards,

Sneezy.