maestro.co.uk - No Response yet Complaint Denied!

[Beasty]

If the Nominet Board needed another reason to pull back from the proposed Default Transfer idea - here is a well reasoned case where a big corporate's Complaint for a generic domain failed despite no Response being filed. Would the correspondence and evidence examined in this case have even seen the light of day if the current plan goes through?

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/25376_maestro.pdf

That said, you should always Respond - especially with a good domain like this!

 

[grandin]

Great job

I would say the expert has truly applied the DRS as intended. Great job and should be respected for giving an in depth account of the general issues facing IP rights

Lee

 

[sneezycheese]

I would say the expert has truly applied the DRS as intended.

...Agreed - In particular:

However, in any particular case, it is for the complainant to prove that the registration is abusive, not for the respondent to disprove it. In this case, I do not consider there to be a presumption that the registration is abusive nor do I consider that the Complainant has established a sufficient case on abusive registration for the Respondent to be required to make a positive case of his own.

Simple rules require simple application! - So Mrs. E.T. just K.I.S.S. and make up - on second thoughts, please don't make it up. :twisted::mrgreen:

Regards,

Sneezy.

 

[retired_member9]

failed despite no Response being filed.

hmm... there IS a response =)

 

[grandin]

failure to respond

Whilst a default transfer would have changed the decision on this case I cannot see it being a bad thing. I am sure based on the recent letters sent by the respondent to the complaintnant the respondent was contactable but decided not to the respond to the complaint via the DRS...IF the respondent was sent a letter recorded delivery from Nominet stating that he must respond to keep the domain name AND the recorded slip showed that he signed for the letter then I think a default transfer would have been fair.

Lee

 

[Beasty]

Whilst a default transfer would have changed the decision on this case I cannot see it being a bad thing. I am sure based on the recent letters sent by the respondent to the complainant the respondent was contactable but decided not to the respond to the complaint via the DRS...IF the respondent was sent a letter recorded delivery from Nominet stating that he must respond to keep the domain name AND the recorded slip showed that he signed for the letter then I think a default transfer would have been fair.

Lee

Why? Do you seriously think it would have been fair for a corporate who could not prove their case, to be granted the transfer of the domain?
Do you not think that the Complainant should be obliged to bear the burden of proving their case, in what is supposed to be a simple system that does not require legal advice.

If you want default judgment, go to Court if you don't think you are going to get a response. That is what the system is there for - and no one who received a court claim form could suggest they did not know they should either take advice or respond to it. The same can not be said of a DRS Complaint - which you and I recognise Lee, but 99% of people would not have a clue about.

I have to say that I am a bit confused Lee. You are the one who favours challenging the Registration Contract/DRS on the basis that they require registrants to enter into an overly complex legal relationship with Nominet - yet you also think that making that contract even more complex and providing an even "rougher" justice than the current DRS is a good idea. There seems to be a conflict there - and I wonder whether your support of it arises from either wanting to then complain about it to the authorities and/or because you think you can take advantage of the proposed system. If it is neither of those, perhaps you could explain your support of it to me?

 

[Beasty]

There is but it wasn't made by the Respondent as part of the DRS process. The Complainant submitted two letters that the Respondent had sent to them, in reply to their own correspondence. See section 4.1 of the decision. The Expert decided to consider these letters as "a response". This is something to be mindful of when you enter into correspondence with another party in relation to a domain name because whatever you say could end up being used in the same way as this, should you be subject to a DRS.

Yes, spot on invincible. So it is not a Response - it was part of the Complaint that was (quite rightly) taken to provide an outline of the Respondent's position. Pretty good luck for the Registrant and a pretty bad choice (with the benefit of hindsight) for the Complainant that they provided the Expert with the arguments that resulted in the rejection of their claim.

Supporters of a halfway house mini-complaint and response should note that if such a system were working in this case then no such evidence would have seen the light of day. Likewise with the current proposal - since no one would have had to read it and decide the case on its merits.

 

[grandin]

what i think

What I think is that Nominet have a legal duty not to sell dodgy domain names whether for profit or other wise BUT given that they and Government stakeholders seem to think it is an impossible task to pre vet domain names by linking the patent office, companies house and domain name registration then the DRS default transfer is a good way to limit any liability i.e. I have proof that registrants truely think they have rights when they do not due to lack of education. The required level of education is that of an IP lawyer....it is also ridiculous that Nominet do not recommend that the registrant take legal advice prior to contracting let alone making it a requirement.

Either way the whole process stinks.....at least we have a good account by this maestro expert....well done expert you are clearly a maestro!

Lee

 

[grandin]

appeal pending

My understanding is that it should state 'Appeal Pending' if an Appeal is pending....this maybe a typo error either way..

I hope it does go to appeal so more of the same can be given thus re-affirming what is natural common sense

Lee

 

[Beasty]

My understanding is that it should state 'Appeal Pending' if an Appeal is pending....this maybe a typo error either way..

I hope it does go to appeal so more of the same can be given thus re-affirming what is natural common sense

Lee

It does normally say that Lee, normally in bold type, so it is a bit funny. However I'd hazard a guess that the complainant is giving the system a second roll of the dice.

Does anyone know the registrant - Mark Adams?

 

[grantw]

Does anyone know the registrant - Mark Adams?

<edit> ...snip


Grant

 

[keys]

Does anyone know the registrant - Mark Adams?

He's a forum member and has sold several names here, but not sure how often he looks in. We used to deal with him regularly.

 

[grandin]

a bit late!

It does amaze me how such a big corporate can THINK it can buldoze its way to a prime domain name. The big issue is around a simple fact......

Nominet and stakeholders have been observing registrants trading domain names for profit for years and as such it is not abusive BUT it could have been very different if the first ever contract outlawed trading.....now its too late and rights holders have to accept a certain way of doing business i.e. before announcing any new product secure your domain name!!

Beasty, have you gone through the one in a million case to see if the judge made any remarks specifically about selling domain names at a profit.

Lee

 

[Nikki]

Maybe the expert try to avoid the default.

Maybe the in house lawyer of Maestro feels like having a holiday or changing a job

Maybe the decision is honest with the policy

Maybe it is just a luck of the respondent.

etc etc etc