i think you mean D00022003 , Nokta didnt respond properly refuting the complainants contentions. They simply said "The Complaint in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking, and should be recorded as such in the DRS process results" along with correcting the registration date provided by the complainant.
If Nokta had bothered to respond to the (3) reasons the complainant thought the registration was abusive, I believe there would have been a different outcome. In the absence of any response disputing the complainants assertions, what should the expert do?
The expert should look at the facts. Nokta held the domains for almost 17 years unchallenged by the rights holder, there is no explanation why the rights holder hasn't challenged that up to now.
The expert goes on to say
"The Respondent is actively involved in the trading of domain names, and under Nominet’s Policy that is of itself unobjectionable. The Policy Paragraph 8.4 provides: “Trading in domain names for profit, and holding a large portfolio of domain names, are of themselves lawful activities. The Expert will review each case on its merits.”
Whereas it is legitimate for the Respondent to trade in domain names, such trade cannot be without restriction. The Respondent must conduct its business in a way which does not exploit or attempt to exploit the rights established by other legitimate enterprises."
Why is he conflating the issue of making a profit with exploiting someone's rights? Either we are free to make whatever profit we see fit, or we are abusing someone's rights. I can't go register fordcars.co.uk and is be fine if I ask for £500, yet an abusive registration if I ask for £5000. The expert is way out of his parish here.
Expert
"There is no direct evidence that when the Respondent registered the Domain Name <ovs.co.uk> on 27th January 2003, that it had the Complainant and its brand and name in mind. Notwithstanding that, given the Respondent’s expertise in the marketplace and the highly unusual combination of letters that make up the Domain Name <ovs.co.uk>, it is entirely plausible that the Respondent did have the Complainant and its brand and name in mind when it registered the Domain Name, and that it considered it would subsequently have the opportunity to sell the Domain Name to the Complainant."
WTF is this expert on about, all 3 letters have been registered for the last 20 years.
Expert
"However, as the Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s assertion, I accept it to be true that the Respondent has offered the Domain Names for sale for the amount of $ 7,500. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary the Expert decides that $ 7,500 is in in excess of the Respondent's documented out-of-pocket costs directly associated with acquiring or using the Domain Names.
Additionally, without the Complainant paying the Respondent the amount of $ 7,500, the Complainant is blocked from using the Domain Names and this inevitably disrupts the business of the Complainant."
What the flying ****? In excess of costs? Is Nominet deciding how much we can sell these for now?
Nokta had a landing page with his name priced. This wasn't like he started emailing the complainant.
