paramount_co_uk

[DaveLeeds]

Choosing carefully who you let broker for you is of paramount importance.

 

[grantw]

The danger of contacting end users!

I'm a bit confused with the is it generic or not stuff though. The term is not being used in it's generic/descriptive way by paramount and no matter how well known the company is I'm struggling to see how that makes the domain/term/word no longer generic?? It's like saying orange is no longer a generic word because everyone has heard of the mobile phone company!

Grant

 

[DaveLeeds]

The danger of contacting end users!

I'm a bit confused with the is it generic or not stuff though. The term is not being used in it's generic/descriptive way by paramount and no matter how well known the company is I'm struggling to see how that makes the domain/term/word no longer generic??
Grant

The respondent was given the opportunity to provide instances of other companies or uses of the domain but failed to do so. But I think the clincher was the 'broker' approaching the high profile end user and basically telling them that if they don't buy the name according to their plan then it may go to auction. I believe that was the red rag.

It's like saying orange is no longer a generic word because everyone has heard of the mobile phone company!

Given time - unfortunately yes.

 

[Murray]

Say a company, Example LTD, want example.co.uk but it's owned by a domainer.

Could they hire a fake "broker" to contact them, pretending to be on example.co.uk owners behalf offering them the domain name..

Then they can take it to the dispute resolution service and can get awarded the domain?

How do they prove the broker is actually working for you, if you were to deny it.

 

[max_rk]

The danger of contacting end users!

I'm a bit confused with the is it generic or not stuff though. The term is not being used in it's generic/descriptive way by paramount and no matter how well known the company is I'm struggling to see how that makes the domain/term/word no longer generic?? It's like saying orange is no longer a generic word because everyone has heard of the mobile phone company!

Grant

There are good and bad ways to approach the end user. It depends on what is the name and rights to name by end user, how it was used so on. Everything has to be taken in to account and and decided up on.

There were no disputes after taking apple.co.uk to end user. So it does work but as everything you need to know what you are doing.

Orange is orange i.e. generic word, but it can’t be claimed to have generic meaning when used to promote telecommunications.

Stuff like “buy red mobile phone here, buy orange mobile phone here” could be claimed as infringement.

Max Karpis

 

[max_rk]

Say a company, Example LTD, want example.co.uk but it's owned by a domainer.

Could they hire a fake "broker" to contact them, pretending to be on example.co.uk owners behalf offering them the domain name.

Then they can take it to the dispute resolution service and can get awarded the domain?

How do they prove the broker is actually working for you, if you were to deny it.

Good question. When disputed, Expert probably will look at any other claims to make a decision. That should’t be enough on its own.

Max Karpis

 

[martin-s]

Interesting read, but a touch one to judge. Ultimately it is generic and I guess the lack of evidence of how many companies are using it as a name has gone against them

 

[Murray]

Good question. When disputed, Expert probably will look at any other claims to make a decision. That should’t be enough on its own.

Max Karpis

The only other evidence was the linking out, which was I believe just because it was parked.

Thinking out loud but..

If you have an extremely valuable domain name, would it be prudent to register a trademark purely to protect from this sort of thing?.

Or would that of even helped in this case do you think?.

 

[stellar73]

Interesting read....I wonder if the decision would have been different had A Hugh been able to provide evidence that his broker had contacted the other so called "interested parties", ie if there had happened to be a "Paramount Driving School" or "Paramount Dry Cleaners" (or whatever) and at the very least they had some form of documented email correspondence with these other companies inviting them to bid for the domain too.

Obviously no small company could have actually paid £120,000 but it would be hard to see how Nominet could find the registration abusive if they could at least prove contact with a range of companies, unless the mere fact that the asking price was so astronomical could be said to imply there was only ever one intended buyer.

 

[DaveLeeds]

Interesting read....I wonder if the decision would have been different had A Hugh been able to provide evidence that his broker had contacted the other so called "interested parties", ie if there had happened to be a "Paramount Driving School" or "Paramount Dry Cleaners" (or whatever) and at the very least they had some form of documented email correspondence with these other companies inviting them to bid for the domain too.

Yes exactly Stellar. Someone went in to this in a very naive manner indeed.

 

[Retired_Member38]

It seems a bit of a silly attempt that was only like to end in the manner that it did surely?

I think he was clutching at straws by transferring from his ltd company to his own name and then denying responsibility of previous bad use of it. He was obviously complicit in that (company director, can hardly deny it)

The broker story seems dubious at best. It just stinks of an attempt to try and negotiate but at arms length and with some deniability later. Only a fool would believe someone was negotiating on that basis, but without the direct knowledge of the owner (outside of a complete troll job and the owner not even knowing the broker at all)

£120,000 asking price along with previous bad intent use... what else did he really expect to happen here? Complete greed... he should have asked for £1,200 and he'd probably have made the sale. Asking 6 figures was just beyond crazy... it was never going to result in anything other than a Nominet dispute with next to no chance of winning it given the above.

 

[Murray]

I think he was clutching at straws by transferring from his ltd company to his own name and then denying responsibility of previous bad use of it. He was obviously complicit in that (company director, can hardly deny it)

Bad use being what though, simply parking it? anyone who has ever had their domain parked at sedo is risking that.

The broker story seems dubious at best. It just stinks of an attempt to try and negotiate but at arms length and with some deniability later. Only a fool would believe someone was negotiating on that basis, but without the direct knowledge of the owner (outside of a complete troll job and the owner not even knowing the broker at all).

What was the evidence the broker was working for Andy? if Andy would have said "I don't know this man, I don't know why he would be offering my domains to anyone, he has no connection with me and no authority given on my behalf"

How could anyone prove otherwise? or if you don't need to prove it, it goes back to my point that if you want a domain you have a trademark for, you just get someone to email you pretending to be from the domain owner and if they have ever had it parked on sedo.. boom, bang, it's yours.

Seems very wishy washy and easily manipulated to lose your domain.

 

[Retired_Member38]

Bad use being what though, simply parking it? anyone who has ever had their domain parked at sedo is risking that.

The complaint mentions specific misuse as recorded by archive.org - linking to movie sites.

What was the evidence the broker was working for Andy? if Andy would have said "I don't know this man, I don't know why he would be offering my domains to anyone, he has no connection with me and no authority given on my behalf"

It would certainly have been interesting had he denied all knowledge of it. But he hasn't denied the connection to the broker and he hasn't denied the linking to movie sites. Given he had the chance to in the dispute and chose not to, then its reasonable to assume both are true surely?

 

[Murray]

The complaint mentions specific misuse as recorded by archive.org - linking to movie sites.

I assume they mean the parking page

http://web.archive.org/web/20051210024424/http://www.paramount.co.uk/

Which links to "dvd" and "frasier" etc

It would certainly have been interesting had he denied all knowledge of it. But he hasn't denied the connection to the broker and he hasn't denied the linking to movie sites. Given he had the chance to in the dispute and chose not to, then its reasonable to assume both are true surely?

Yes, the pdf did say though

He says that he “did not give Mr McDonnell any authority to sell or approach the complainant or anyone else for that matter, regarding paramount.co.uk”. A copy of an email exchange between the Respondent and Mr McDonnell, post-dating the Complaint, is submitted in support of this contention.

Which seemingly is good evidence that he was not given any authority to sell the domain or contact them. Obviously it would depend what is actually in the email though, it may not have referred do paramount directly, maybe it just said i give you permission to broker "domain, domain, domain" and paramount wasn't included.

 

[Retired_Member38]

It seems clear the respondent was being evasive and bordering on lying at points. So its really hard to then believe him when he comes up with emails after the fact saying he specifically said he didn't want that particular domain sold, yet doesn't go into reasons why. He also doesn't go into reasons or specifics of other parties interested in the domain.

It seems to me that if the respondent was actually telling the truth, he could have put his case forward in a far more convincing manner. I think he didn't do this, as most of his excuses are simply lies.

He'd have been better off denying all knowledge of the broker altogether - it was a better gamble than the half baked story he came up with.


Looking at the complaint as a whole, can anyone really say he should have kept the domain?

 

[RobM]

Whether he gave McDonnell authority or not is irrelevant. He *still* had the domain which was proven to have pointed to rival sites. That wasn't going to change regardless of his relationship to his 'broker'. Totally stupid and pointless loss.

 

[Murray]

It seems to me that if the respondent was actually telling the truth, he could have put his case forward in a far more convincing manner. I think he didn't do this, as most of his excuses are simply lies.

Maybe he was just dismissive of it all and didn't believe there was much chance of it being ruled against him.

I would guess he is probably now appealing.

Looking at the complaint as a whole, can anyone really say he should have kept the domain?

What were main deciding factors is what would worry me.

A lot of domains have a history of being parked at sedo.

It's easy to manufacture a fake domain broker to contact you.

Would denying all knowledge of the broker as the domain owner, true or not, be enough to defend yourself from the claim?

I didn't think it was so easy to take a domain from someone.

 

[Retired_Member38]

He was presumably trying to bypass the linking to competitors complaint with the change of ownership though. If that had worked he still needed to get past the broker issue.

Why wasn't there a notarised statement from the broker admitting that he didn't have authority to sell the domain? Along with notarised copies of the emails - the notary could have signed to the effect that he seen the emails printed out from the gmail login or whatever (so he knew they were genuinely sent on the dates said).

Given the above wasn't included... I'm guessing the emails didn't exist. And the broker probably didn't exist either

 

[max_rk]

The only other evidence was the linking out, which was I believe just because it was parked.

Thinking out loud but..

If you have an extremely valuable domain name, would it be prudent to register a trademark purely to protect from this sort of thing?.

Or would that of even helped in this case do you think?.

The response Andy put could have been better - I don't know full story though. Andy was known for putting good defence.

Trademark would help to support your claim in DRS response but it wouldn't be enough on its own. Even if you have a trademark, the registration could still be found abusive.

DRS is there to decide whether registration abusive or not, its is not there to decide on trademark rights.

In my personal case of shoeexperss.co.uk, Complainant had trademark and established use of the name but it wasn't enough to have successful DRS claim of abusive registration.


If you have valuable domain name and project in mind its good idea to register trademark (visualisation if not text) because if someone else registers while you are asleep, your domain won't be as valuable to some potential buyers.

Max Karpis

 

[websaway]

Maybe he was just dismissive of it all and didn't believe there was much chance of it being ruled against him.

I would guess he is probably now appealing.



What were main deciding factors is what would worry me.

A lot of domains have a history of being parked at sedo.

It's easy to manufacture a fake domain broker to contact you.

Would denying all knowledge of the broker as the domain owner, true or not, be enough to defend yourself from the claim?

I didn't think it was so easy to take a domain from someone.

I think I can see where you are coming from, correct me if I'm wrong.
You are looking at each issue in the decision as separately being a reason to lose the domain. If you look at the accumulation of issues, then it's less likely to fall foul of them all. I do think though that some potential claimants might be prepared to build their case over a long period of time (DANGER).
It was comforting to see that owning zillions of names and making zillions in profit trading them was not in itself taken into consideration.