Advice wanted please

[namealot]

Thank you very much for that. One other thing though. Does anyone know exactly what to issue (i.e. injunction, etc ?). And please dont say "you must have a lawyer" as cannot afford it and will do myself. The only thing missing is that I dont know what the type of Court procedure to issue.

thanks
K

There are lots of different grounds for proceedings… If you dont know what too issue how how you going too defend it...There are much more effective, quicker efficient paths to take than legal action … DRS, Negotiation etc

 

[Bailey]

Out of 36 appeal decisions, 16 DRSs have been overturned. Bearing in mind that the appeal is fundamentally about the manner of the original decision (rather than to allow for copious amounts of aditional evidence to be submitted), woohoo could consider that the DRS has a 44% unreliability outcome.

Unless I've misread that statement. Any statistician would be having a heart-attack reading that inference. I believe the saying goes - "There are Lies, Damn Lies and then Statistics"

I sure even a layperson would draw the conclusion that approximately *80-90% of DRS decisions (those not appealed) have at least erred on the side of being correct. leaving 10-20% of those appealed and not appealed subject to your 40:60 ratio. This would put the error percentage at between 4-12% of all decisions made. Still high but a figure a lot more reflective of the error percentages I believe.

 

[anthony]

Unless I've misread that statement. Any statistician would be having a heart-attack reading that inference. I believe the saying goes - "There are Lies, Damn Lies and then Statistics"

I sure even a layperson would draw the conclusion that approximately *80-90% of DRS decisions (those not appealed) have at least erred on the side of being correct. leaving 10-20% of those appealed and not appealed subject to your 40:60 ratio. This would put the error percentage at between 4-12% of all decisions made. Still high but a figure a lot more reflective of the error percentages I believe.

^ It doesn't sit well that someone needs to stump up a lot of additional money to correct a previous DRS decision. For those who can afford the £750 but not the further £3000, the '80-90% of erred on the side of being correct' decisions are no comfort when compared to the odds from making an appeal.

Consider that those 80-90% only appear to be correct, just like the original DRSs prior to their appeals. All the appeal decisions should make you question whether any original DRS decision is actually a reliable read.

 

[woohoo]

One question that would help the original starter of this thread (me !) is "does anyone know of any DRS cases where (a) the appeal was not taken but instead proceedings were issued by the Respondent instead ? (b) does anyone know/have any case law of DRS's cases that were taken to Court and who knows it may have some benefits for future DRS's respondents" If you lot can please give me some help in that regard then I am happy to take this matter to Court more easily.

Thank You

 

[wb]

Yes, there is case law on the Nominet website.

Had a quick skim through some of them for you and it looks like there are a couple that mention the DRS process, which is what you want to know about by the sounds of things.

Firstly, in the Citigroup v GPM Ltd case, it is stated that the dispute had originally gone to Nominet's DRS but had to be "suspended when it went to court". In my view, this would show that the two are independent of each other and don't need to take place subsequent to each other.

Secondly, in the Tesco v Elogicom Ltd case, Elogicom raised the defence fact that "Tesco should have used the DRS and UDRP rather than going to court". In response to this, "the judge said that this was not compulsory, and both the DRS and UDRP made it clear that they were alternatives to court, not mandatory and neither could order costs and other similar remedies".

 

[woohoo]

Yes, there is case law on the Nominet website.

Had a quick skim through some of them for you and it looks like there are a couple that mention the DRS process, which is what you want to know about by the sounds of things.

Firstly, in the Citigroup v GPM Ltd case, it is stated that the dispute had originally gone to Nominet's DRS but had to be "suspended when it went to court". In my view, this would show that the two are independent of each other and don't need to take place subsequent to each other.

Secondly, in the Tesco v Elogicom Ltd case, Elogicom raised the defence fact that "Tesco should have used the DRS and UDRP rather than going to court". In response to this, "the judge said that this was not compulsory, and both the DRS and UDRP made it clear that they were alternatives to court, not mandatory and neither could order costs and other similar remedies".

WB, thank you very much for that ,that is most helpful. Now I have another question on Jurisdiction, and this one is bit more tricky. I know that in UDRP complainants have to Submit to the Jurisdiction of the Registrar OR the Respondent . Is that the case also with DRS ? reason I ask is that the Complainant is from Overseas and has no office here ,they say.

Edit: I have now realised something will be important. The DRS has been filed by the Overseas company (in their name), yet throughout that they refer to their,alleged subsidiary, UK Ltd company as being the reason that they require the domain and gives them the rights to it. Why have they not issued in the name of the UK Ltd company ???? This I think is important.

K

 

[woohoo]

OK I have now found a part in Section 3 of DRS procedure that details the Jurisdiction;
viii.state that the Complainant will submit to the
exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts with
respect to any legal proceedings seeking to reverse
the effect of a Decision requiring the suspension,
cancellation, transfer or other amendment to a
Domain Name registration, and that the
Complainant agrees that any such legal
proceedings will be governed by English law;

That is good, since the complainant has agreed to submit to UK jurisdiction .
K