jokers.co.uk DRS 05054

[Whois-Search]

http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/marku...7/5054.html&query=jokers.co.uk&method=boolean

 

[Jeewhizz]

Ouch Are you going to appeal?

 

[denchomsky]

What a Joke!......................Sorry I couldn't resist

 

[mally]

terrible decision. Jokers could be used for a load of things

 

[bb99]

How come it's on that site before it's on the Nominet website? Haven't read it yet though - just starting now...

 

[landlord]

Unfortunately

Emotions may have got the better of FC....and the complainant used this to take the GENERIC domain name. Very sad indeed and remember registrants don't get second chances to act proper with their domain names.....

Did the complainant complain against the use before submitting the complaint? If no then poor show that FC wasn't given an opportunity to correct any issues.

Beasty, is their any case law regarding true generic domain names that have considered to have taking unfair advatange of complainants rights? what is the courts remedy...damages or transfer? citi group, tescos, marks and spencers, phones4u are not really generic

Lee

 

[retired_member3]

What a heap of b******s. Ok the site shouldn't of been routing affiliate traffic back to the complainants site but what gives them the right to the domain name??? Worst case the domain should be deleted. It's not like it's a typo???

I especially liked colins choice of web forwarding to competitors :mrgreen:

 

[FC Domains]

This is far more bizarre than it looks.
For a start I was not the respondant and am currently 'having words' with Nominet, which is why it isn't on their site.

 

[retired_member26]

Complainant's Rights

I have not read such a "biased" and "lame" explanation in my life regarding the stuff under "complainant's rights" section.

This is disgusting!

TurNIC

 

[laura]

Mad ????????????

Regards,

Laura

 

[mojoco]

This is far more bizarre than it looks.
For a start I was not the respondant and am currently 'having words' with Nominet, which is why it isn't on their site.

maybe thats why the nameservers are set as:

Name servers:
gaea.myth.co.uk
uranus.myth.co.uk

 

[landlord]

bizarre

I did think it was bizarre as I know FC runs a very amicable buying/selling web page...merely buying and selling generic domain names.

Was the name hijacked or was the respondent the previous owner?

Personally I think 'transfer' as a remedy is unlwaful unless the complainant has unequivocal rights but I have said this time and time again and it gets no-where......deletion would certainly be the correct remedy.

Contractual issues rarely go to court nowadays cause the cost are frankly enormous.....this is where the system fails the small rights holders....no new laws are set cause everyone settles out of court. For example, A disputed invoice of say 30k is likely to be settled out of court cause legal fees could amount to near on that and courts are reluctnant to issue full costs even if you win.

The system is wrong....apart from the small claims court but given the nature of domain names it is likely that any case is referred to the high court

Alas dispute resolution is certainly the route BUT a DRS cannot be based on unknown english law....Nominet should apply for a judicial review as I can't see how they can apply their contractual rights in the present climate....the longer they leave it the worse it will get

 

[FC Domains]

Having been informed of the publication of the DRS findings, I contacted Nominent and then wrote to them as follows on 17th December.
I will not comment further until Nominet formally reply. (They seem to be having problems, because there are no rules governing what happens when they don't follow their own rules.)

>We temporarily removed the Expert decision from the web site. In order to
>allow us to look into this matter further, please can you outline the
>basis of your complaint by reply.
>
re: DRS05054 jokers.co.uk

My complaint is that on the above document I am named as the
respondent, which I was not.

The document states that my conduct was an abusive use of a domain
name and so reflects badly on my trading practices.

I sold the name to Cleveland Baker (60 Taswell Road, Rainham, Kent) in
November 2004. He then failed to submit the transfer paperwork to
Nominet. However he did have full control of the domain and is responsible
for any use it was put to.

On 19th October 2007 I was contacted by Suzanne Begley. I replied by
fax, stating that I had sold the domain and that it should be transferred to
Mr Baker.

I heard nothing more, but it seems that you failed to remove me as the
Registrant. However you did accept Mr Baker as the respondent.

So either I am the Registrant and the DRS was conducted incorrectly, or
Mr Baker is and I have been falsely named.

Either way I am very unhappy about the disrepute brought by my alleged
actions.

I do wish to point out again that I had no part in the DRS process, or the use that the domain was put to. I go out of my way to maintain my reputation as a fair and professional domain trader.

 

[landlord]

Own written rules

Don't hold any hope they dont follow their own written rules....

They think an @ sign is a comma

 

[bb99]

Colin - fascinating, thanks for setting the record straight.

Amazing that the decision doesn't pick up on the fact that the respondent isn't the registrant.

I think Nominet have really dropped a bollock in terms of their administration here :mrgreen:

 

[retired_member3]

lol classic egg on face! Well done nominet. UK domaining wouldn't be nearly as entertaining if you were competent!

I'm still waiting on replies about deleting.co.uk!

 

[bb99]

Having been informed of the publication of the DRS findings, I contacted Nominent and then wrote to them as follows on 17th December.
I will not comment further until Nominet formally reply. (They seem to be having problems, because there are no rules governing what happens when they don't follow their own rules.)

I do wish to point out again that I had no part in the DRS process, or the use that the domain was put to. I go out of my way to maintain my reputation as a fair and professional domain trader.

I was telling someone about this (general situation) yesterday and they couldn't believe it.

It hasn't re-appeared on the Nominet website so I assume it's still ongoing....

 

[Ghislaine]

Any update on the Jokers situation?

I heard nothing more, but it seems that you failed to remove me as the
Registrant. However you did accept Mr Baker as the respondent.

So either I am the Registrant and the DRS was conducted incorrectly, or
Mr Baker is and I have been falsely named.

Either way I am very unhappy about the disrepute brought by my alleged
actions.

What is the situation now? Have Nominet accepted that you are NOT the Registrant? And how come the expert thought you were the Respondent? He must have known you weren't because he mentioned you by name, saying that you had sold the site to Baker in 2004, yet he still put your name against Respondent at the top of the document .... very careless ....