game.co.uk update?

[Admin]

Anyone heard any update on game.co.uk?

The domain recently shows as "Renewal request being processed" and is still showing as registered to the same guy even though the domain redirects to the GAME PLC website.

Nominet site shows "Appeal process suspended under DRS Procedure 20.a"

which reads

"If legal proceedings relating to a Domain Name which is the subject of a complaint are issued in a court of competent jurisdiction before or during the course of proceedings under the Dispute Resolution Service and are brought to our attention, we will suspend the proceedings, pending the outcome of the legal proceedings".

So I guess lengthy legal proceedings are still underway?

 

[bb99]

[snip]

I mixed this up with itunes.co.uk and hence have deleted my reply

 

[James]

I'm always stunned that Game UK PLC could ever be so arrogant, ignorant and vindictive regarding this domain. They deserve to go out of business in my honest opinion, and I hope they do.

 

[domaingenius]

I would guess that Game Plc did a confidential deal and bought the name or else this would certainly have ended up in Court as I could not comprehend someone letting them win such a good name. Were Court proceedings ever started ?.

DG

 

[melitaweb]

Another example of DRS failings

 

[EdPhillips]

[...]

Nominet site shows "Appeal process suspended under DRS Procedure 20.a"

which reads

"If legal proceedings relating to a Domain Name which is the subject of a complaint are issued in a court of competent jurisdiction before or during the course of proceedings under the Dispute Resolution Service and are brought to our attention, we will suspend the proceedings, pending the outcome of the legal proceedings".

So I guess lengthy legal proceedings are still underway?

The note on the website told you that an appeal was in progress, but that court action interrupted this. That note has now been removed, and the case is not marked as being under appeal, which tells you that the court action is over (at least as relates to the domain) and there has been some sort of resolution which does not require the DRS to continue. The WHOIS tells you who has the domain. Beyond that, I can't help.

The case is therefore closed.

 

[James]

But why on Earth was the outcome of the original DRS in Game UK PLC's favour? It's so unfair it beggars belief. No amount of justification can change the fact that Nominet have quite possibly ruined an individual, just so a corporation feels more secure about it's branding. I hate Game UK PLC even more than Nominet, but both display comparably bizarre levels of ignorance.

 

[EdPhillips]

But why on Earth was the outcome of the original DRS in Game UK PLC's favour?

The expert set out his reasoning in great detail in his decision -
http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/drs/decisions/?contentId=2169

Nominet does not tell the experts what to think - they really are independent - so essentially you have the same information that I have.

 

[sneezycheese]

Nominet does not tell the experts what to think - they really are independent - so essentially you have the same information that I have.

…'in my opinion' this is not entirely true.

For the experts to be truly 'independent' and free to make a decision, they would be making their 'judgement' based on UK law, rather that Nominet’s rather weak and somewhat dubious 'Policy'.

 

[James]

Ed, I can only assume that the independent expert was either DRUNK, or receiving backhanders from Game UK PLC. Noone but *noone* of a sane mind thinks this particular DRS outcome is fair. In fact, it's something of a joke amongst many in the domain industry. It's reached legendary status.

 

[James]

The DRS case summary includes such gems as:

Recognition of the GAME brand is demonstrated by the result of a Google search against the term "game". The complainant produces evidence of such a search carried out in October 2004. The second result (the first result after the Google news listing) is an entry for game.uk.com which defaults to the Complainant's current domain name game.net

:shock:

I mean, is this supposed to be supporting evidence for F*** sake!? Who the heck came up with this? It sounds like it was written by a vegetable, or someone with an IQ of around 20 (max)

 

[taggholder]

Don't blame the Nominet Experts regarding DRS decisions they are merely the executioners of Nominet's controversial DRS dispute policy.

Can anyone remember any formal consultation before the introduction of the Nominet DRS?

Can anyone locate a link to the Nominet webpage with a public comment forum before Nominet DRS was introduced?

Anyone know who at Nominet was responsible for the DRS policy?

 

[texidriver]

The problem is Nominet don't appear to archive things on their site, rather they appear to remove them completely. There was a DRS Consultation getting on for two years ago where mostly IP lawyers submitted comments. The Policy was changed as a result of this consultation. As to the original DRS consultation, I am sure it's filed away somewhere at Nominet HQ.

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/2983_IssuesLogDec.pdf
http://dnc.org.nz/content/drp_sub_1_nominet_uk.txt
http://www.nominetnews.org.uk/oldSe...hp?PHPSESSID=d49b0ddf5570e8fbd87cbdacc1ec9719
http://www.dundas-wilson.com/news/bulletins/ipit/IPIT_TechTalk_0504.pdf
http://www.alex.org.uk/nominet/waitlistconsultation.pdf
this last one is a cracker for dropcatchers!

 

[Jay Daley]

Can anyone remember any formal consultation before the introduction of the Nominet DRS?

Can anyone locate a link to the Nominet webpage with a public comment forum before Nominet DRS was introduced?

Sorry but this bit is underhand. You may well have strongly held views about the fairness of the DRS but that does not mean it is reasonable to try to create unfounded rumours about it.

The most recent DRS consultation was some time ago, the details of which are here

http://www.nominet.org.uk/policy/consultations/drs/

There were many responses received and until recently these were published on our site, however we recently removed them as a tidying up exercise.

The original implementation of the DRS was also extensively consulted upon and those responses were also displayed for quite some time. One of the original consultation documents is here

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/2782_Draft_Dispute_Resolution_Service_Policy_June_01.pdf

 

[Jay Daley]

The problem is Nominet don't appear to archive things on their site, rather they appear to remove them completely.

You're right we do remove things after a very long period of time. However we do have it all still and can normally supply it if you ask for it. If there is enough interest then we might even put it back ! Let me know.

 

[domaingenius]

You're right we do remove things after a very long period of time. However we do have it all still and can normally supply it if you ask for it. If there is enough interest then we might even put it back ! Let me know.

Can you please just tell us what happened to game.co.uk ?. Did the original registrant appeal and win or lose his appeal /.Has he still got the name or has he done a deal to sell it ?.

Thanks
DG

 

[Jay Daley]

Can you please just tell us what happened to game.co.uk ?. Did the original registrant appeal and win or lose his appeal /.Has he still got the name or has he done a deal to sell it ?.

Sorry I don't know. I think Ed has already given the official statement.

 

[EdPhillips]

Can you please just tell us what happened to game.co.uk ?. Did the original registrant appeal and win or lose his appeal /.Has he still got the name or has he done a deal to sell it ?.

Thanks
DG

Unlike the DRS, where all decisions are published, court decisions are not always open and transparent to the public. I have seen court documents, but they may not tell the whole story and I cannot tell you what was in them. If the parties want to say, that is their option.

I can say that because of the court action, the DRS appeal was stopped, so there will be no DRS appeal decision in this case. If there had been, we would publish it. As for who has the domain now - look at the WHOIS.

Ed

 

[EdPhillips]

Don't blame the Nominet Experts regarding DRS decisions they are merely the executioners of Nominet's controversial DRS dispute policy.

The DRS works extremely well, and wins awards. If it was as "controversal" as you say far more people would go to court. In practice, we had 100 cases in January and the DRS gets busier every day, and very few people go to court. There have been some high profile cases, sure, but that is hardly a reflection of the DRS as a whole. The DRS does not have to be in line with the law - its based on its own rules - but actually it is generally in line with the law. There have been very few cases where someone has gone to court after using the DRS - I can think of three off the top of my head. In the first the registrant who been given a "no transfer" decision in the DRS lost in court and ended up paying about £6,000 in costs. In the second the registrant (who would almost certainly have lost at the DRS) sought to avoid the DRS - and ended up losing in court and paying £40,000 in damages and costs. The third is game.co.uk - as I say, I don't know the basis of the settlement, but the registrant is no longer the registrant. Three cases in a couple of years is virtually nothing, and the DRS was, if anything, more generous than the courts. This tends to suggest to me that actually the DRS is much less controversal than people like to suggest - merely that the general law is much harsher on anything perceived as cybersquatting than many people realise.

Can anyone remember any formal consultation before the introduction of the Nominet DRS?

Can anyone locate a link to the Nominet webpage with a public comment forum before Nominet DRS was introduced?

Anyone know who at Nominet was responsible for the DRS policy?

As Jay correctly pointed out there were extensive public consultations at the time. The DRS is in part based on the UDRP, but with numerous changes to reflect the experience that WIPO and others got from running the UDRP. In addition, Nominet updates the DRS about every three years, in order to keep it current and to improve the system. This means that the DRS is being copied around the World.

 

[EdPhillips]

The DRS case summary includes such gems as:



:shock:

I mean, is this supposed to be supporting evidence for F*** sake!? Who the heck came up with this? It sounds like it was written by a vegetable, or someone with an IQ of around 20 (max)

All parties to the DRS (both registrants and complainants) use Google searches as evidence. It is no secret that evidence they provide ranges from the non-existent, to the poor, to the excellent. The experts are largely reliant on the evidence that the parties provide, and sometimes that is all they had. Do not forget, though, that the DRS (like the courts) is based on the "balance of probability" (i.e. which version of events is more likely to be true). It is not about proving things beyond reasonably doubt or to scientific standards.