Why wasn't finecheeses decided like this one?

[Nigel]

This DRS decision should bring some peace of mind to those holding descriptive generic domains.

Decisions

Complainant fell at the first hurdle because the expert says the domain name was 'wholly descriptive' of his own business i.e. midlands limos. Which begs the question wasn't 'fine cheeses' wholly descriptive of the business of the fine cheese company? Or would you rather not go into that one again?

 

[grandin]

drs about rubbish

and the drs about rubbish....i.e. the skips drs

Lee

 

[Nigel]

Hi Lee - I haven't heard about the skips DRS - do you have a link?

Thanks

Nigel

 

[Beasty]

This DRS decision should bring some peace of mind to those holding descriptive generic domains.

Decisions

Complainant fell at the first hurdle because the expert says the domain name was 'wholly descriptive' of his own business i.e. midlands limos. Which begs the question wasn't 'fine cheeses' wholly descriptive of the business of the fine cheese company? Or would you rather not go into that one again?

Well spotted Nigel. Indeed the same may also be said of "Sussex skips". Oops, just noted Lee beat me to it on this one!

The other interesting news is that the expert on the Sussex Skips case - David King - is on the review panel of Experts.

 

[Nigel]

Well spotted Nigel. Indeed the same may also be said of "Sussex skips". Oops, just noted Lee beat me to it on this one!

The other interesting news is that the expert on the Sussex Skips case - David King - is on the review panel of Experts.

Thanks for the info Jim. Just took a look at the sussex skips case. It's about time Nominet tabled a discussion on the meaning of 'wholly descriptive'. I'm sure you'd be able to clarify things a little for them. Left me also thinking that it would be a lot quicker and cheaper if Nominet simply tossed a coin to decide DRS cases.

Are you telling me that Experts review the Experts at Nominet? Surely that should be carried out by an independent body?

 

[grandin]

googleegook

Beasty I personally would like to see a review panel that consists of a few outside the experts....maybe myself, beasty and others who can at least raise points to the review panel experts for them to explain..........

I personally see the need to bridge the gap between the layman and a legal expert who to the layman talks aload of googleegook

Lee

 

[domaingenius]

I personally see the need to bridge the gap between the layman and a legal expert who to the layman talks aload of googleegook

Lee

But Lee THAT is the point, they do not want you to understand and thats why they talk googleegook (tm) .The system is **** and thats it. The point is do Nominet really care about making a fair DRS, I doubt it myself.

DG

 

[grandin]

Nominet Management

If Nominet truly don't care and given Nominet are 'not for profit' can we vote the directors out and replace the directors with our own team!

If I was a UK judge I would find DRS experts a bit of a slap in the face...thinking they can do judges jobs based on unknown english law.....i must say contrary to what Nominet think judges are not unforgiving of so called abuse but the latest case (eurid) clearly shows judges are unforgiven if the registrar does not dot the i's and cross the t's.

It will only take one court case and the judges will slap it all back in the face of the so called experts....if i was an expert i would be ashamed to call myself an expert.....we layman have predicted the outcome of drs appeals therefore they are mere laymen like you and me.......sack them they are crap

Lee

 

[Beasty]

If Nominet truly don't care and given Nominet are 'not for profit' can we vote the directors out and replace the directors with our own team!

If I was a UK judge I would find DRS experts a bit of a slap in the face...thinking they can do judges jobs based on unknown english law.....i must say contrary to what Nominet think judges are not unforgiving of so called abuse but the latest case (eurid) clearly shows judges are unforgiven if the registrar does not dot the i's and cross the t's.

It will only take one court case and the judges will slap it all back in the face of the so called experts....if i was an expert i would be ashamed to call myself an expert.....we layman have predicted the outcome of drs appeals therefore they are mere laymen like you and me.......sack them they are crap

Lee

The Bernard Matthews case makes interesing reading on the differences between judges/experts and DRS/Courts.

However - like fcuk, game and xenical - you won't find it on Nominet's Case Law section...

 

[grandin]

bernard

Beasty, where can I find bernard...in the same section as tesco's? Seriously I would like to read it, can you give me a link

Lee

 

[Beasty]

Beasty, where can I find bernard...in the same section as tesco's? Seriously I would like to read it, can you give me a link

Lee

Here's the DRS - it sets out some of the background: bernardmatthews.co.uk. The Expert will be familiar to you Lee! He was also the original Expert in bounce as well.

BTW - I understand that the judge in the High Court was Sir Hugh Laddie - one of the leading IP judges. Despite his kicking out the claim, they still came back for a (second) DRS - and this time succeeded!

Either way, I think that it is pretty horrendous - failed DRS, failed High Court, win DRS - since there was not just double jeopardy in this case, but triple jeopardy !

 

[grandin]

Classic Quote

This is a classic quote from that case 'An inspection of the website as at 28th June reveals the website now presents Bernard Matthews Property Maintenance which provides painting, tiling, bathroom and kitchen installation services and includes photography/restoration.

The Expert considers that the Respondent’s use of the website does not justify or excuse the confusion and disruption caused to the Complainant’s business and it is unfair..........uh?

So you can use your website and not infringe or pass off but this is unfair cause the other party did not register the name first and had to accept an alternative crappy domain name....thats not unfair thats competition!!

This particular expert then said in the GHD case... had the Respondent's past or present use of the Domain Name been a genuine business offering in the financial services market, it would not be abusive.'

I think experts are confusing confusion by being confused

Lee

 

[olebean]

The Expert considers that the Respondent’s use of the website does not justify or excuse the confusion and disruption caused to the Complainant’s business and it is unfair..........uh?
Lee

Same old "we do not allow" more that one category of TM per name ...

 

[rob]

Regarding the email 'abuse' there - I have some nice generic names but idiots still believe they are getting the right addresses by sending email there.

For example I have hey.co.uk , however the clowns at hey.nhs.uk keep sending all sorts of crap there, and a couple of cases when I have replied my name dot hey.co.uk they think it is an internal email.

Does nominet therefore expect legit domain owners to take action in such circumstances?

or shall I DRS the NHS on similar grounds!?