Interesting

[grandin]

Found a cybersquatter on one of my rights...whats funny is they need pre FSA authorisation for the name.......LOL

Naughty naughty

If you are a complainant under the DRS can you (on winning) apply to the courts for the registrant to reimburse your drs fees?

Lee

 

[Beasty]

Found a cybersquatter on one of my rights...whats funny is they need pre FSA authorisation for the name.......LOL

Naughty naughty

If you are a complainant under the DRS can you (on winning) apply to the courts for the registrant to reimburse your drs fees?

Lee

No one has recovered (or as far as I am aware tired to recover) costs for a DRS.

 

[rob]

Found a cybersquatter on one of my rights...whats funny is they need pre FSA authorisation for the name.......LOL

Naughty naughty

Poor thing, the registrant probably is not aware of what he is doing bearing in mind there is a 3 million word contract!

Cheers,
Rob.

 

[grandin]

Giving up a right

So beasty, as an complainant, are you giving up a right to claim costs (via the corts) if you submit a DRS.....I haven't had time to read the DRS blurb but it clearly states that as a complainant i agree to be bound by the drs..

Lee

And Rob the complaint has nothing to do with complicated trade mark infringement so on this occassion I think you miss the point

 

[rob]

And Rob the complaint has nothing to do with complicated trade mark infringement so on this occassion I think you miss the point

You said Found a cybersquatter on one of my rights...

The common definition of cybersquatter is someone who registers trademarked names in bad faith.

Apologies for thinking it was regarding a TM name

 

[grandin]

rights

rights are not limited to TM rights holders, unregistered rights are as much enforeceable under english law as TM's are.... indeed maybe my knowledge is more useful to you than you thought

Lee

 

[rob]

rights are not limited to TM rights holders, unregistered rights are as much enforeceable under english law as TM's are

Cybersquatters by definition use the fact that TM's are registered rights to squat them - unregistered rights are more fuzzy.

I am guessing you believe you have decent goodwill and reputation to show misrepresentation so are you looking just for just the domain transfer or damages and costs as well?

If there is a wider enterprise basically passing off potentially you could avoid the DRS (as it is not soley a domain name issue) and use it as an example of an instrument of fraud in court.

Saying that... DRS 'experts' consitantly have a lower threshold of 'proof' than courts so could be the best route. Opinion based DRS... works for some

... indeed maybe my knowledge is more useful to you than you thought

Apart from occasional issues of clarity I have no doubt to the usefulness of your posts ?!

Further to this you have mentioned elsewhere you believe Nominet derive an ongoing benefit and are therefore jointly liable - can we expect some fireworks in court?

 

[grandin]

yes ron

indeed rob

and I have unequivocal rights to that specific domain name AND Nominet should not have allowed the Registrant to register the domain name in question....that is if I am to believe my registrars assertions...

However, Nominet can revoke any name without DRS and I will pushing for that first.

Lee

 

[GWing]

Any costs incurred by someone's illegal act or negligent act can be recovered under English and Welsh law, not sure about Scottish.

But by just registering a domain name, the respondent hasn't done anything against civil law. If they have been trading against someones copyright, then this is against civil law and you will have a good case for recovering your costs.

But if you did try to recover your costs and the previous owner went to court to defend themselves, what would happen if the judge said he was right and the domain name should not have been handed over? You might be risking an almighty ongoing battle which could last further months.

I think that's why most just let it drop,

Although I don't know if you would have a case against nominet for letting someone register it without rights and then charging you £750 to get it back. They should have to hand the £750 back if it's found they have let this guy register it.

My bet is that these would be the best people to take to court, but better have some deep, deep pockets.

Mind you take them to the small claims court for £35 and even if you loose you don't have to pay their costs (as long as claiming under £5,000) worth a punt for £750

GW

 

[redbird]

...and I have unequivocal rights to that specific domain name AND Nominet should not have allowed the Registrant to register the domain name in question....Lee

I'm a little confused by this thread, possibly lack of caffeine related but in the meantime could you explain further?

1. Are you saying that there are certain domain names that are available but cannot be registered (like LL.co.uk's that I know about). If so how would someone know what they were if Nominet allow them to be registered?

2. I'm a little confused by the statement ".. have unequivocal rights to that specific domain name.." If so why would you not have registered it?

3. "...pre FSA authorisation for the name..." Is that true to JUST register it or just for the use it is put to after reguistration?

I guess I'm confused by not knowing the domain name in question which I guess you don't want to disclose, which is fair enough, but could you give some other hypothetical example?

 

[rob]

1. Are you saying that there are certain domain names that are available but cannot be registered (like LL.co.uk's that I know about). If so how would someone know what they were if Nominet allow them to be registered?

It depends on Nominets role. If they are (part) responsible for the names registered then all typos / rights infringement is also their responsibilty. However if the onus shifts on registration to the registrant... then its not an issue.

2. I'm a little confused by the statement ".. have unequivocal rights to that specific domain name.." If so why would you not have registered it?

Fair point and defensive registrations ought to be part of any online strategy. However cybersquatters will go +1 on however many you buy.

3. "...pre FSA authorisation for the name..." Is that true to JUST register it or just for the use it is put to after reguistration?

I have a feeling which names are in question here, and I am guessing it is the end use that requires FSA auth. I could own mortgagebrokers.co.uk and not require FSA auth, however to use it I would.

As with most disputes (on and offline) each one has its nuances so general advice / pointers cannot always be used as a firm guide.

 

[redbird]

Cheers Rob

 

[Nigel]

Found a cybersquatter on one of my rights...whats funny is they need pre FSA authorisation for the name.......LOL

Naughty naughty

Lee

What are you saying Lee? That someone is putting themselves forward as a Mortgage Broker or an Insurance Broker etc without FSA registration? I understant that you don't need FSA authorisation to reg insurance, mortgage domains or to park them at a parking company i.e. a listing of relevant ads does not constitute giving financial advice. If you could elaborate a bit it would help us understand in what way your rights have been affected.

 

[rob]

What are you saying Lee? That someone is putting themselves forward as a Mortgage Broker or an Insurance Broker etc without FSA registration? I understant that you don't need FSA authorisation to reg insurance, mortgage domains or to park them at a parking company i.e. a listing of relevant ads does not constitute giving financial advice. If you could elaborate a bit it would help us understand in what way your rights have been affected.

I dont know the names but looking at LeesCompanyName.me.uk / LeesCompanyName.org.uk and singular forms show they are taken and parked.

If these are the names in question it does raise the point of chosing a generic trading term / generic word as a company name. Likewise adverts are in the same niche, however with the terms involved they would not be anything else.

As with all disputes... three sides to every story!

 

[Nigel]

Good points Rob - Perhaps Lee could let us know if these are the type of domains he is referring to.

 

[grandin]

It is rare

I am sure it is a rare thing to happen but my DRS was submitted last night so I can't really say much more now.

I am also asking the registrar to confirm to Nominet the details of my request to register (date and time).

Nominet should act to revoke the registration as it doesn't need an expert to decide this case....in the wrong hands such registrations could be a loophole giving rise to fraudulent misuse (that is not to say the registrant in this case had any of that in mind)

Lee

 

[rob]

I am sure it is a rare thing to happen but my DRS was submitted last night so I can't really say much more now.

Rare for someone to be on both ends of a DRS , I can only think of one other. It will be interesting to see what you make of the process from a complainants point of view.

 

[Nigel]

Can you give any clues to the possible 'loophole giving rise to fraudulent misuse...'

 

[grandin]

too expensive

I was in favour of Nominet's 'shift dodgy names quick option'....so my initial observation would be....expensive as a complainant

Anyway Nominet have breached their own rules so a formal complaint has been sent today and DRS shouldn't be required on this occassion.

Lee