Surname .co.uk - can you now lose them?

[Stephen]

Recent case at Nominet, rules againist domain holder of a suranme domain to the surname holder :

http://www.mondaq.com/x/244376/Trademark/Nominet+Rule+On+Use+Of+Personal+Name+In+CoUk+Domains

I can understand a .me.uk rulling but not a .co.uk

Should Nominet now open it to auction of all holders of that surname?

Does anybody have any more infomration?

Does this mean a lot of domainers will change surname by deed poll and then approach Nominet to get their domain?

 

[Skinner]

Definitely interesting, partly because of the name Harry Jupp, unusual surname. partly because previous advice has been that unless your business is called surname and you have built good faith in your name blah blah you had no chance, but mostly because the HRA sticks the boot in again.

 

[DaveLeeds]

Found this:
https://secure.nominet.org.uk/drs/search-disputes.html
Case # D00012276
Handled by the same people W*dlak* B*ll

 

[Skinner]

Lot of mitigating circumstance in that case, its not as clear cut as Mr Casino wants Casino.co.uk.

 

[Edwin]

Lot of mitigating circumstance in that case, its not as clear cut as Mr Casino wants Casino.co.uk.

Absolutely. It's no good reading anything "general" at all from a ruling with such special circumstances.

 

[foz]

The domain in question is hvidbro-mitchell_co_uk

Definitely not common.

 

[DaveLeeds]

But where will it end now that a precedent has been set? You only have to look at the recent sales on DL to see that there's a huge can of worms to be opened. How many AD members have 'Town' names in their portfolio that are also surnames?

 

[PaulGregory]

Good find DaveLeeds, although I think you're now more worried than necessary. As ever with these things, the actual facts of the case make things a lot clearer:

The Complainant contends that the Respondent’s acquisition/registration and use of her surname (and that of her husband and her children) without their permission and in order to connect it to a website publishing personal information about her family and criticizing her husband renders the Domain Name an Abusive Registration as defined in paragraph 1 of the Policy.

Obviously that's a lot different from Johnny Brandable or Fred Generic popping up and nabbing a long-established domain simply by citing the HRA.

Personally, I agree that if you register a domain in the surname of your ex-partner and point it at a website criticising your ex's new partner, then that is (on balance) an "abusive registration".

The right to the surname is interesting. If the site was "myexpartnerspartnerstinks.co.uk" then presumably there would be no ownership dispute, just a dispute over content. But without the disputed content, the registration wouldn't have been considered abusive:

The fact that a Complainant establishes that he/it has Rights does not mean that the domain name (even if identical or similar to the name in question) is Abusive.

 

[Lucien Taylor]

does this mean a lot of domainers will change surname by deed poll and then approach nominet to get their domain?

lol