Harry Potter Eat Your Heart Out!

[grandin]

alas

alas.....an instrumental of fraud where a mere threat or assertion is made...interesting that my understanding of criminal law creates a 'caution' and repeated cautiions can lead to an arrest....cause we are talking about money this all changes....money morals indeed!!

the tolerance in respect to abuse seems to prefer criminal activities...I therefore doubt the decision was made as you say

 

[retired_member9]

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.

You know how easy it is to create historical e-mails. This is something which has no authentic proof and can't be really relied on. Especially in this case, when:

- identities of "wizards and witches" can't be named
- there is an anonymous e-mail to the complainant asking "why they wouldn't
give a good offer for the name to secure it"
- registrant has other similar cases with construction-related domains which
he doesn't know why he registered and put for sale.
- he is local to the place of the named construction

One need not to be an expert to decide on balance of probabilities...

 

[Beasty]

You know how easy it is to create historical e-mails. This is something which has no authentic proof and can't be really relied on. Especially in this case, when:

- identities of "wizards and witches" can't be named
- there is an anonymous e-mail to the complainant asking "why they wouldn't
give a good offer for the name to secure it"
- registrant has other similar cases with construction-related domains which
he doesn't know why he registered and put for sale.
- he is local to the place of the named construction

One need not to be an expert to decide on balance of probabilities...

Sorry, but that is totally wrong.

First of all, there is no allegation of forgery reported here - so in a paper based system the expert has to accept the documents as genuine unless someone proves otherwise.

And even if there were to be such an allegation, as has been said many times in the DRS - to make that finding one either needs compelling evidence or one needs to go to court and draw it out in cross examination.

As the UDRP decision says, the previous conduct is questionable - but on the facts are not relevant to this case.

Where contemplating a finding of something like forgery, courts are loathed to make such a finding without almost cast iron proof - because such a finding goes to the heart of the party's character. I think it would be unwise to allege such a thing unless one were quite sure of one's facts.

 

[tifosi]

One has to remember that the DRS is not a court of law. The balance of probabilities is not applied to any legal decision but to the prodecure & policy of the DRS and more specifically that of abusive registration.

We're not privvy to the documentation that the expert was provided, and so can't make a judgement on how much weight each part was given.

In the past experts have given weight to non-evidential checks such as PRSS / google which has resulted in criticisms of results.

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

It was one point I raised in my consultation reply, and borne out of first hand experience as a respondent. I would have been happier with a larger drs entry fee - non-refundable but offset against an expert decision - which would pay for an initial pre-entry validation.

S

 

[retired_member9]

Sorry, but that is totally wrong.

First of all, there is no allegation of forgery reported here - so in a paper based system the expert has to accept the documents as genuine unless someone proves otherwise.

Maybe yes. But maybe not in DRS?
Most of cases are quickly weighted and decided on the same "probability" scales. Otherwise it seems it would be very easy to spoof protection as well as attack arguments, which I believe can't be heard and verified same way as in courts.

 

[Beasty]

Maybe yes. But maybe not in DRS?
Most of cases are quickly weighted and decided on the same "probability" scales. Otherwise it seems it would be very easy to spoof protection as well as attack arguments, which I believe can't be heard and verified same way as in courts.

It has been dealt with in previous DRS cases - experts have to be very wary of making a finding of forgery. That is why the DRS expressly provides that complex cases should be taken to court.

If the same emails were put in evidence in both cases, then at the very least the DRS expert should have dealt with why he chose to ignore them. If one read the DRS decision, one would not even know that the emails were put forward in evidence.

 

[grandin]

sufficient evidence

The domain name is bizarre and long

The registrant lives in the same town as the development

The domain name was registered at around the time of the development ....

Lee

 

[Beasty]

The domain name is bizarre and long

The registrant lives in the same town as the development

The domain name was registered at around the time of the development ....

Lee

I am sure you would be delighted with a decision based on that if it were your domain Lee.

Especially if you had provided emails showing that you'd asked your web developer to reg the name 5 months before the development name was announced.

And if the name was (as this one is) linked to your field of interest (look up cross quarter days on sites that tell you about wiccans) you'd probably be even happier!

And then you show the expert that yes - the announcement made you email your web designer to make sure that they'd registered the names for you - and as they hadn't, they did it there and then.

Like the UDRP panelist - I am quite happy to allow that if this went to court and was properly examined, then there it is certainly possible that this argument might fall apart.

But in a paper based system you can not have decision makers jumping to conclusions if there is such an argument on the table. I am genuinely surprised that you think that you can, given your past arguments in this area.

 

[grandin]

wizardreee

But if they were true wizards then:-

They would have seen them coming (complainant) and cast a spell on them

Also why did they not cast a spell on the expert?

Alas, they were probably not worthy of a wzardreeee website anyway

Lee

 

[Beasty]

But if they were true wizards then:-

They would have seen them coming (complainant) and cast a spell on them

Also why did they not cast a spell on the expert?

Alas, they were probably not worthy of a wzardreeee website anyway

Lee

:lol::lol::lol:

Mind you, since they have the .com then I reckon they win on points - after all the .uk alone would not be much use to the developers.

 

[grandin]

Happy developer

I think the developer would be happy just getting the .co.uk as he is UK based and only trying to protect his brand name.

Personally I would not develop a UK brand without a .co.uk.....I may well choose the .com version as the brand but not if I didn't have the .co.uk equivalent. It is rare that a .com is typed in when the brand is uk based.

Lee

 

[Beasty]

I think the developer would be happy just getting the .co.uk as he is UK based and only trying to protect his brand name.

Personally I would not develop a UK brand without a .co.uk.....I may well choose the .com version as the brand but not if I didn't have the .co.uk equivalent. It is rare that a .com is typed in when the brand is uk based.

Lee

I would not advise a client to go ahead with naming a £350 million development without both - especially if the one they did not have hosted a hostile website about witchcraft that was openly critical of them. Being a .com as well, they do not have a second bite at the UDRP cherry if there is a change of use - so it would be a nightmare.

 

[grandin]

lucky stars

I was merely expressing that if I was developer and had to choose I would choose the .co.uk. Whether I would choose a brand without first securing its name is a different issue and one I agree with you entirely.

Lee