myspace.co.uk DRS 04962

[Whois-Search]

http://www.nic.uk/digitalAssets/27270_myspace.pdf

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/technology/2008/01/myspace_and_bbc_friend_or_foe.html

 

[Paullas]

another case of big v small

 

[developdomains]

i think if the guy who owned it had kept it pointing at his own website, he would of been allowed to keep it. Pointing it at a parking page allowed my space to claim that he was abusing their trademark

yes a case of big vs small but he/they did act a bit foolishly in my opinion by parking it and trying to earn money...............

 

[aZooZa]

i think if the guy who owned it had kept it pointing at his own website, he would of been allowed to keep it. Pointing it at a parking page allowed my space to claim that he was abusing their trademark

yes a case of big vs small but he/they did act a bit foolishly in my opinion by parking it and trying to earn money...............

Exactly. He should have thought that one out.

 

[retired_member3]

What use was the domain if he didn't park it? Your not going to make money out of it otherwise so may as well of parked it and made what he could before the inevitable? I think pointing it to his own site would of still got him a drs. Would he of lost though?.....

 

[devolution]

Just remember Game.co.uk and itunes.co.uk...

I think a good appeal would have managed to let them keep the domain...

 

[Whois-Search]

Interesting quote:

To the extent that the pages allude to or contain links to the Complainant’s site, this is a product of the algorithms used by Sedo in putting links on the page for which the Respondent is not accountable. This is not accepted. First, it cannot be the case that the Respondent can avoid accountability for the actions of Sedo for which it would have been responsible if it had taken the same steps itself. The Respondent is the Registrant of the Domain Name and in the ultimate analysis it is responsible for the content which appears on the site. Moreover, the Respondent has been aware of the Complainant’s assertions and concerns since at least May 2007 and has chosen not to change.

It is time the parking companies woke up to this.....because if you really wanted a name you could force a parking page to show infringing adverts using Google Adwords.

 

[tifosi]

definately agreed. Though even so the expert should take into account the categories/subcategories the parking pages were displaying, especially if it was not in the same niche as the complainant. Sometimes the algorithms sneak one past the barriers.

I've forcibly suggested in the past to Namedrive that they look at this. They've implemented some, but the 'pure' ability to selectively display only the ads you want is by request only.

2008 - the year to move away from parking and into direct advertising?

S

 

[Beasty]

Just remember Game.co.uk and itunes.co.uk...

I think a good appeal would have managed to let them keep the domain...

Game was on its way to a DRS Appeal when Game PLC started a passing off action in the High Court. It settled before it reached trial.

 

[WaftyCrank]

I think I'd have tried to find a way to direct the traffic to FaceBook with that one. Would have been funny watching them argue the toss that he was making money from myspace when clearly the traffic was going to another social networking site.

 

[mat]

I think I'd have tried to find a way to direct the traffic to FaceBook with that one. Would have been funny watching them argue the toss that he was making money from myspace when clearly the traffic was going to another social networking site.

Surly that would be even worse....

 

[WaftyCrank]

Surly that would be even worse....

To be honest mat you're probably right. Must have been having an off moment when I said that. Would still have been funny to think about myspace steaming at the ears when they saw the re-direct.

To be fair I think the guy was on to a loser from the start with this case. it's a shame given the length of time he owned the name but there you go.

 

[Beasty]

I think I'd have tried to find a way to direct the traffic to FaceBook with that one. Would have been funny watching them argue the toss that he was making money from myspace when clearly the traffic was going to another social networking site.

That's what itunes.co.uk did with Napster - not a good idea!

 

[Jeewhizz]

Picked up by El Reg: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/29/myspace_wins_domain/

I'm still shocked that this can happen in a supposedly open DRS service.

I hope they appeal

 

[pugyrob]

myspace.co.uk should go after THEM lol as they regged first (joke). I think like t has been said, if it was me i would get a site up on myspace.co.uk pretty quick and have marketed it separately for something else. Traffic from that site must have been crazy.

 

[julian]

owners a bit silly, probably had umpteen time to flog it for a ££,£££+ but was greedy should have sold now taken to the cleaners :mrgreen:

 

[Whois-Search]

More comments on:
http://mashable.com/2008/01/29/myspace-unfairly-wins-uk-domain-name/

 

[landlord]

Interesting comment

This is an interesting comment 'Moreover, the Respondent has been aware of the Complainant’s assertions and concerns since at least May 2007 and has chosen not to change. '

By making this statement are the experts implying that a mistake could be rectified....if the registrant was unaware of the infringing parking page and on recieiving the complainants assertions (may 2007) acted swiftly to rectify any error and minimised any infirngement to merely pence.

Discussion point:-

Parking pages rarely make more than a few pence and therefore passing off damage could be valued at the price of the revenue produced...as such an offer of damages as at May 2007 and a change of parking page may have been enough to change this case. Traffic to a page is not enough for a passing off action as initial superficial confusion is not enough.i.e. unless a click is made from the page what damage is actually done.

Lee

 

[blacknight]

This is an interesting comment 'Moreover, the Respondent has been aware of the Complainant’s assertions and concerns since at least May 2007 and has chosen not to change. '

By making this statement are the experts implying that a mistake could be rectified....if the registrant was unaware of the infringing parking page and on recieiving the complainants assertions (may 2007) acted swiftly to rectify any error and minimised any infirngement to merely pence.

It's a very long and wordy decision. It sounds like they were hoping that the domain holder would handover the domain.

Parking pages rarely make more than a few pence and therefore passing off damage could be valued at the price of the revenue produced...

I don't know about the "few pence" bit.

How would the complainant know how much was being made on a particular domain?

 

[landlord]

Part of the defence

The complainant wouldn't know but the defendant could produce the parking page report to confirm how much has been made on the name. The defendant then offers a quick resolution...pay damages to the complainant to the value of the revenue derived (and maybe solicitors costs...£200) and undertaken to not infringe of complainants rights in the future.

The above is based on the following fact...

To the public at large the perception is that the domain becomes the property of the domain name holder (on registration) therefore unless the complainant has unequivocal rights to that name then a 'transfer' would be unlawful. The question of property rights has been misunderstood in the courts and therefore I can't see how an expert can pass judgement on whether it is right to transfer a domain name.

HOWEVER, I haven't had time to read this decision but if the famous myspace existed prior to the domain name registration then I personally think I would rule that the defendant had the complainant in mind....myspace is so famous and the defendant did take advantage of the complainants rights.

Lee