Harry Potter Eat Your Heart Out!

[Beasty]

It seems there is a dispute going on between a coven of wizards and witches on the one hand and a property developer on the other. The domains in dispute are highcrossquarter.com and co.uk - it seems both DRS and UDRP are already underway.

The wiccans have the domains and say it is a religiously significant name to them - the property developers have chosen it for a £350 million development.

 

[retired_member6]

I hope the covenant win, it would keep them in rats and eye of toad for years to come.

 

[tifosi]

Just turn the the developers into toads and there ya go! Problem solved. ribbit!

S

 

[Beasty]

Round one to the coven! :twisted:

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0866.html

 

[Beasty]

Round two to the developers.

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/25378_highcrossquarter.pdf

Quite a different take on the same facts in a UDRP and a DRS.

 

[retired_member9]

It seems DRS expert has put more and proper attention to the facts why this registration and respondent statement is a sham.

 

[grandin]

expert correct

The expert clearly nailed the wizards into a coffin

 

[Beasty]

It seems DRS expert has put more and proper attention to the facts why this registration and respondent statement is a sham.

How then does one explain the emails detailed in the UDRP decision showing that the name was under consideration some months before the shopping center chose it? These do not seem to have had an impact on the DRS expert - but are consistent with a valid non-abusive registration. In my view the expert's "abusive coincidence" could well simply be a logical reaction on hearing that someone else may well want a domain that you thought your ISP had registered. This evidence gets no analysis in the DRS decision but is decisive in the UDRP. Without the UDRP we would not even know any of that detail.

 

[grandin]

be serious

Beasty be serious....you can't expect to get a job as an expert if you totally disregard the expert saying this 'It is clear from the exchange of emails in which the Respondent requested
figure sum for the domain name that the Respondent registered the domain
the date that the Complainant’s new name was announced, primarily for
of selling the domain name to the Complainant for valuable consideration
the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly associated with
the domain name in dispute. The Complainant has also submitted evidence that the Respondent is engaged
pattern of registration in which the Respondent is the registrant of Internet
names which correspond to well-known names in which the Respondent
apparent rights, and that the domain name in dispute is part of that pattern. In the circumstances, given the fact that he has engaged in a pattern of such registrations and given the fact that he registered the domain name in dispute
date on which the Complainant announced the new name for its shopping
project, on the balance of probabilities, the Respondent’s claim that he had
preparations to use the domain name incorporating the words “high cross
prior to the establishment of the Complainant’s rights is not credible.'

can you???????????????????????

I am only interested in the few caes that fall down WHEN experts are experts AND should be fully liable for mistakes.........transfer to someone who does not have unequivocal rights is morally wrong

Lee

 

[monaghan]

Not to get too specific on this case, but surely if the developer knew what he was calling the development and he wanted Internet visibility, he should have registered the domain at this point and not waited until after the press release?

 

[grandin]

yes but

yes but that doesn't give anyone a right to steal that right...given the facts the epxert is right.....the registrant on the balance of prob new of the development and then tried to take money from them....the registrant should be glad that the drs is in place cause it would have cost em alot in the courts....would have i expected Nominet to pre vet this one.....no BUT if it was allanceandleicestar.co.uk then i would!!!

 

[monaghan]

I'm not disagreeing with you on the outcome of this case, however in this case, if the guy had put up a witches web site rather than a under construction page, the developer may not have been able to put such a strong case and the outcome may well have been different. Far too little thought is given to putting things onto the Internet and then people assume they can claim things back through the legal process when a small bit of thought in registering the name before the press release could have saved them hours of work.

 

[tifosi]

yes but that doesn't give anyone a right to steal that right...given the facts the epxert is right.....the registrant on the balance of prob new of the development and then tried to take money from them....the registrant should be glad that the drs is in place cause it would have cost em alot in the courts....would have i expected Nominet to pre vet this one.....no BUT if it was allanceandleicestar.co.uk then i would!!!

Nominet don't pre-vet any DRS for validity of content, only that it complies with the structure ie personal details, filled fields, word limits, timelines, and carries the correct annexes.

S

 

[Beasty]

Beasty be serious....you can't expect to get a job as an expert if you totally disregard the expert saying this 'It is clear from the exchange of emails in which the Respondent requested
figure sum for the domain name that the Respondent registered the domain
the date that the Complainant’s new name was announced, primarily for
of selling the domain name to the Complainant for valuable consideration
the Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly associated with
the domain name in dispute. The Complainant has also submitted evidence that the Respondent is engaged
pattern of registration in which the Respondent is the registrant of Internet
names which correspond to well-known names in which the Respondent
apparent rights, and that the domain name in dispute is part of that pattern. In the circumstances, given the fact that he has engaged in a pattern of such registrations and given the fact that he registered the domain name in dispute
date on which the Complainant announced the new name for its shopping
project, on the balance of probabilities, the Respondent’s claim that he had
preparations to use the domain name incorporating the words “high cross
prior to the establishment of the Complainant’s rights is not credible.'

can you???????????????????????

I am only interested in the few caes that fall down WHEN experts are experts AND should be fully liable for mistakes.........transfer to someone who does not have unequivocal rights is morally wrong

Lee

Yes, assuming the same evidence was submitted in each case.

 

[grandin]

come on

come on beasty, this motive is porbably the only motive that has passed through high court judges..... both itunes and citibank focussed on the registrant moving quickly to secure a domain name shortly after an annoucement...

And non use did not protect the citibank registrant

Sorry tifosi I was merely talking about my biggest bug bearer ie. that Nominet make no attempt to pre vet registrations but are happy to take money

Lee

 

[Beasty]

come on beasty, this motive is probably the only motive that has passed through high court judges..... both itunes and citibank focussed on the registrant moving quickly to secure a domain name shortly after an annoucement...

And non use did not protect the citibank registrant

Sorry tifosi I was merely talking about my biggest bug bearer ie. that Nominet make no attempt to pre vet registrations but are happy to take money

Lee

The problem is jumping to conclusions. If and when the case has moved beyond any possible appeal, I will ask you the question that challenges your instant assumption in this case.

BTW, itunes was not about the registration - it was about the use.

 

[grandin]

Don't agree

Now beasty i do respect your skills and you will know better than me, i am however testing my only reasoning by bouncing stuff off you..

My understanding of itunes is this....

Apple TM's itunes in the US and then co.uk itunes was born and then Apple applied for UK TM after the co.uk reg. The use clearly showed abuse BUT only cause the right was born in the US prior to the right in the UK AND it took precedent over the UK right cause Apple were so well known that in the opinion of the judge (probability test as the same in this case) the registrant must have had Apple in mind.... lets not forget itunes is very generic so the use would have been for internet tunes....the right was clearly granted to Apple despite the generic fact.....

HAD the itunes.co.uk registration been born prior to Apple itunes the outcome could have been very different......such a case I have not seen YET



Lee

 

[Beasty]

Now beasty i do respect your skills and you will know better than me, i am however testing my only reasoning by bouncing stuff off you..

My understanding of itunes is this....

Apple TM's itunes in the US and then co.uk itunes was born and then Apple applied for UK TM after the co.uk reg. The use clearly showed abuse BUT only cause the right was born in the US prior to the right in the UK AND it took precedent over the UK right cause Apple were so well known that in the opinion of the judge (probability test as the same in this case) the registrant must have had Apple in mind.... lets not forget itunes is very generic so the use would have been for internet tunes....the right was clearly granted to Apple despite the generic fact.....

HAD the itunes.co.uk registration been born prior to Apple itunes the outcome could have been very different......such a case I have not seen YET



Lee

The itunes decision expressly excludes any suggestion that the registration was abusive at the time of registration. No US TM was pleaded and the UK TM does not give a US TM for a priority date. The application for the UK TM (October) and the registration of the domain (November) are close - but the TM application was advertised in December, after the domain was registered.

I would agree that there is a bit of blurring about the attempts to sell - though again the response to Apple's inquiry (asking for £50K) was held not to be abusive.

It was the offers to sell to competitors and the re-direction to Napster - both of which happened long after the registration and after the itunes service was up and running - that did for the registrant.

 

[grandin]

but

Your argument relies on the assumption that itunes is not generic enough i.e. it wasn't tunes.

For example, if the name was tunes.co.uk and was redirected to Napster whilst Apple built a brand around tunes then you are saying this is still abusive....I don't agree, all the facts together (like this drs decision) make the decision correct on the balance of probability.

Lee

 

[Beasty]

Your argument relies on the assumption that itunes is not generic enough i.e. it wasn't tunes.

For example, if the name was tunes.co.uk and was redirected to Napster whilst Apple built a brand around tunes then you are saying this is still abusive....I don't agree, all the facts together (like this drs decision) make the decision correct on the balance of probability.

Lee

It's not my argument Lee - you asked me what had been decided in itunes and that is what I replied to. In particular, this was not a case that relied on prior rights at the time of registration nor any allegation of abuse at the time of registration. The problem was that the guy made it clear when e.g. offering to sell it to Napster that its value lay in the association with Apple.

I agree with the finding that it was abusive and also - for what it is worth - think that he would therefore have lost in Court on the same facts.