judges

[grandin]

Lets get the liability back on the decisions makers-

Something was bugging me when Jac referred to the one and million case setting a hefty precident...

Here we go:-

Nominet sell domain names to laymen and consumers. You do not need legal respresentation at the point of sale even though you are bound by an infringement clause that the Patent Office can't accurately assesss:-

One Million V .....

quotes 'were two rather SILLY YOUNG men who hoped to make money from the likes of the respondents by selling the domains names to them for as much as they could get' The Appeal judge then stated 'they may be silly'

So I say 'My judge why didn't you recommend further restrictions to stop silly men being sued for SILLY money'

AND given the citi group high court judge has to follow your ruling then WHY did he incorrectly state that you are an OWNER of a domain name...

ON the balance of probability I rule that the judges helmets should be transferred to more worthy holders

Get it sorted!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Lee

 

[domaingenius]

There is one part of the One in a Million case that everyone that tries to use it seems to miss, and that is the Judge saying specifically that "there is no tort of going equipped to pass off". That means that merely owning a domain should not be a tort, ir is only when you use it for the same class as a TM that you may come a cropper. You can never ever predict how a Court will rule, I have learnt that. I went before a High Court Judge recently and was expecting him to rule against me, but amazingly he ruled in my favour. That took 5 years . You never ever can tell.

DG

 

[grandin]

Dg

Interesting....not domain related then DG?

A judge ruling is only an opinion based on law as he/she knows it

Thy judge should represent public opinion and not UNFAIRLY effect SILLY MEN

Lee

 

[Beasty]

There is one part of the One in a Million case that everyone that tries to use it seems to miss, and that is the Judge saying specifically that "there is no tort of going equipped to pass off".

That's "One in a Million" first instance. It's not what LJ Aldous said in the Appeal.

 

[domaingenius]

That's "One in a Million" first instance. It's not what LJ Aldous said in the Appeal.

Yes agreed, but still the same applies as he is quoting a fact and not making a ruling.

DG

 

[domaingenius]

Grandin, nope not domain related ,unfortunately.

DG

 

[static]

There is one part of the One in a Million case that everyone that tries to use it seems to miss, and that is the Judge saying specifically that "there is no tort of going equipped to pass off". That means that merely owning a domain should not be a tort, ir is only when you use it for the same class as a TM that you may come a cropper. You can never ever predict how a Court will rule, I have learnt that. I went before a High Court Judge recently and was expecting him to rule against me, but amazingly he ruled in my favour. That took 5 years . You never ever can tell.

DG

I was told once that going in front of a judge is the very last thing to do because then control of the outcome is *completely* lost to the Judge. Out of court settlement allows *some* control.

 

[Beasty]

Yes agreed, but still the same applies as he is quoting a fact and not making a ruling.

DG

DG

I do not agree.

Jonathan Sumption said at first instance that there was not a tort of "going equipped" to pass off.

LJ Aldous overruled him on that - and said merely registering a domain could amount to creating an "instrument of fraud/deception" and so satisfy the requirments of passing off.

His reasoning was that web users would look at WHOIS when searching for a company - see their name next to the registrant - and so assume that the two had some sort of business relationship.

Make of that what you will - but that is what I think he is saying.

 

[grandin]

Law of passing off

Surely the law of passing off is very different today as opposed to 10, 20, 30 ,40 50, 100 years ago?

The interlinking of thousands of websites via a string of characters makes it near on impossible to determine true passing off based on the domain name alone.

Today the 'public' are less confused when they enter a website. They know within a second whether its what they are looking for and given we have search engines within easy access the real company can be found within a couple more seconds.

Lets assume a ppc page is a shop....On this basis could we name our department store barbie and then sell barbie dolls deep within all the interlinking links?....could Debenhams change their name to barbie because they do sell barbies deep within their store?

I have come to the conclusion that whilst on the web we get many page views the penetration is poor....the consumer will search out what he/she wants cause he/she doesn't have to travel from town to town to find the correct shop........my sandles.co.uk page is a prime example....I get over 500 hits per a month but only 14 ish clicks thru's, the consumber didn't find what they wanted and went away very quickly without considering buying a pair of sandles.

As the phone4u case showed....if you make out you are someone you are not then be prepared to pay a big price.....if phone4u was a ppc page it would be interesting to see if the judge ruled differently....ie. is the name generic enough? and would a ppc page create confusion in the eyes of the consumer?

bounce would have been a great court case

Lee