Bad Faith

[Beasty]

So unless that rights holder buys the name then the subsequent purchaser would be liable. The question is:- Could the original purchaser be held jointly responsible if the rights holder came looking for the name?

Not necessarily - there can be more than one valid holder of rights - see the case cited above. The seller may not be able to show rights, but the buyer could - and so should be able to resist a DRS or other claim.

As for joint liability - yes in court as a joint tortfeasor; not as far as I can see under the DRS - it only allows for a claim against the current Registrant.

 

[grandin]

Beasty you have missed the point

Beasty you have missed the point:-

No one should be buying or selling a name like tescofoods.co.uk to anyone but the food retailer...Tescos have unequivocal rights to such a domain name because the name Tescos is trade marked AND the domain name describes the class of the trade mark

Would be very easy for Nominet to run a query program to check Patent's Office database against current and future registrants. It could look for typos but more importantly words that match the trade mark class. Queries would be raised and domain name held for the proposed registrants to state why they should have the name.

Preeeeeeeeeeeervention is better than cuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure

Lee

 

[olebean]

Beasty you have missed the point:-

No one should be buying or selling a name like tescofoods.co.uk to anyone but the food retailer...Tescos have unequivocal rights to such a domain name because the name Tescos is trade marked AND the domain name describes the class of the trade mark

Would be very easy for Nominet to run a query program to check Patent's Office database against current and future registrants. It could look for typos but more importantly words that match the trade mark class. Queries would be raised and domain name held for the proposed registrants to state why they should have the name.

Preeeeeeeeeeeervention is better than cuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure

Lee

Does that depend on bottom line

 

[grandin]

ole

ole...money or ass?

Lee

 

[Beasty]

Beasty you have missed the point:-

No one should be buying or selling a name like tescofoods.co.uk to anyone but the food retailer...Tescos have unequivocal rights to such a domain name because the name Tescos is trade marked AND the domain name describes the class of the trade mark

Would be very easy for Nominet to run a query program to check Patent's Office database against current and future registrants. It could look for typos but more importantly words that match the trade mark class. Queries would be raised and domain name held for the proposed registrants to state why they should have the name.

Preeeeeeeeeeeervention is better than cuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure

Lee

No one would argue with the point you make about something like tescofoods.co.uk - since if someone tries to sell food (or pretty much anything else to consumers these days) using "tesco" in the UK then the case would not take too long.

However, that wasn't the question asked. The issue as I understood it was whether it is possible for a buyer of a domain to acquire safe of any claim that may have been possible against the previous owner. I suggest that the answer depends on whether the new owner can show a legitimate right to the name.

To use your grocery analogy, if a Mr Sainsbury owned sainsbury.co.uk then he's have a good claim to resist the supermarket chain of the same name - even if he had acquired it from a third party with no such rights. Mind, he'd be in trouble if he linked it to tesco.com... :twisted:

That is also a flaw with your suggested prevention model at the regsitry - since showing that a third party has possible rights to the name does not mean that a registration should be blocked. Trade marks do not provide absolute monopoly rights in every class.

 

[grandin]

Nominet

Beasty I am trying to get to the point that if an original registrant can be liable then why can't Nominet?

Nominet are knowingly allowing names like tescosfoods to be reg'd. They are clued up more than most and have been members of acorn for years. They understand the abuse going on but do not proactively stop it at the source i.e. at the point of sale.

Surely, coomon sense says they must not knowingly take good money for a name that they could establish (based on their knowledge) as a abusive registration. To knowingly ignore such abuse and then offer that abuse for sale makes them equally liable...in the same way as a prior registrant

I have never known companies to get away with selling blatant tools of deception

Lee

 

[Jay Daley]

No one should be buying or selling a name like tescofoods.co.uk to anyone but the food retailer...Tescos have unequivocal rights to such a domain name because the name Tescos is trade marked AND the domain name describes the class of the trade mark

Would be very easy for Nominet to run a query program to check Patent's Office database against current and future registrants. It could look for typos but more importantly words that match the trade mark class. Queries would be raised and domain name held for the proposed registrants to state why they should have the name.

Preeeeeeeeeeeervention is better than cuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuure

There are two issues with this:

1. You can't automate this properly as you suggest. For example, if someone tried to register platescompany.co.uk then it would get caught by your scheme, when plainly it is nothing to do with it.

2. Rights are assigned in different categories (you know that), only a very few people have super trademarks. As a result you need to know the context where a term is used to determine if it infringes rights.

This is why we provide an 'after the fact' dispute resolution policy.

 

[olebean]

ole...money or ass?

Lee

:???: Lee u aint spanking either!

OB

 

[olebean]

There are two issues with this:

1. You can't automate this properly as you suggest. For example, if someone tried to register platescompany.co.uk then it would get caught by your scheme, when plainly it is nothing to do with it.

2. Rights are assigned in different categories (you know that), only a very few people have super trademarks. As a result you need to know the context where a term is used to determine if it infringes rights.

This is why we provide an 'after the fact' dispute resolution policy.

Jay

That is somewhat of a misnomer

The reason there is a DRS is the lobbying of IP holders and their cronies

 

[Jay Daley]

The reason there is a DRS is the lobbying of IP holders and their cronies

No it isn't and you know that. The DRS is there to help people resolve disputes without having to go to court, by being more accessible.

 

[domaingenius]

No it isn't and you know that. The DRS is there to help people resolve disputes without having to go to court, by being more accessible.

Why do Nominet not do us all a favour and outsource the DRS to the Patent Offices' new dispute resolution service on the basis that they follow TM laws (as they do anyway) to resolve domain disputes ?. Conversley ,why is Nominet so keen to hold on to DRS ?.

DG

 

[olebean]

No it isn't and you know that. The DRS is there to help people resolve disputes without having to go to court, by being more accessible.

Jay

It was the IP holders and their cronies, that was acknowledged at the meeting at Nominet earlier this year and it is acknowledged in journals...

It is also accepted that what was know as cybersquatting (The practice of registering a domain of a trademark with the view to charging a premium) in the main doesn't exist.

The original report written by WIPO does not extend or narrow the existance of rights, yet nominet did... And why? As admirally suggest by TW

"not one voice defended it"

and now those involved in the DRS feel the need to mock?

 

[sneezycheese]

The DRS is there to help people resolve disputes without having to go to court, by being more accessible.

...Translation:

The DRS is ther to help 'complainants' grab a domain name they want nice and easily, having any 'real rights' is not an issue cause the 'experts' will manipulate the rules to suit, they wont have to go to court saving money - result: registrant gets shafted!!!

 

[grandin]

Nominet

Jay said 'There are two issues with this:

1. You can't automate this properly as you suggest. For example, if someone tried to register platescompany.co.uk then it would get caught by your scheme, when plainly it is nothing to do with it.

2. Rights are assigned in different categories (you know that), only a very few people have super trademarks. As a result you need to know the context where a term is used to determine if it infringes rights.'

I am not making myself clear, I am not looking for Nominet to solve the problem but take some responsibility. As at today you are offering to sell domain names that infringe by trade mark and class:-

The patent office have classes, in those classess they have products and services. If a domain name gets registered with words that include the trade mark and a product/service then a system can pick it up, and ask the registrant to make a manual plea of why they should have the name.

I personally don't see how you can get away with offering to sell something that you, Nominet, know is abusive.

Today Nomiet, through an ISP, offered me tescofoods.co.uk. Are you telling me you have a right to sell me this name?

Lee

 

[Jay Daley]

I personally don't see how you can get away with offering to sell something that you, Nominet, know is abusive.

Because we don't know it abusive, that's why. In order to know that you have to

1. Have a human being check every registration to interpret the meaning because no computer can ever do that. For example someone can register tescobread, tescocheese and so on for millions of names and no computer algorithm is ever going to catch even a small fraction.

2. Find out whether the registrant has the legal permission to use these rights or not. For example we regularly find out about companies that use third parties to register names for later transfer, or use subsidiaries etc.

It just cannot be done effectively.

 

[Jay Daley]

It was the IP holders and their cronies, that was acknowledged at the meeting at Nominet earlier this year and it is acknowledged in journals...

The DRS is ther to help 'complainants' grab a domain name they want nice and easily, having any 'real rights' is not an issue cause the 'experts' will manipulate the rules to suit, they wont have to go to court saving money - result: registrant gets shafted!!!

No, none of this is even remotely true.

You are confusing two very different things

1. The motives that led to the DRS being established

2. Your perception of problems in the way it works.

For you to have problems with the way it works is understandable, but for you to transfer those into discrediting the motive for setting up the DRS is unwarranted.

 

[Jay Daley]

Why do Nominet not do us all a favour and outsource the DRS to the Patent Offices' new dispute resolution service on the basis that they follow TM laws (as they do anyway) to resolve domain disputes ?. Conversley ,why is Nominet so keen to hold on to DRS ?.

You are playing a cheap trick with language.

Where is there any justification for your phrase "so keen to hold on"? Apart from a few people on AD who else wants to see the DRS outsourced? Where is the pressure that you imply we are resisting?

 

[olebean]

No, none of this is even remotely true.

Jay

If your arguement was collaborated it might be credible. As it stands it is no more than opaque view from an ivory tower perhaps with intent on public influence...

OB

 

[Crusader-K]

Jay

I know that Lesley has already answered some questions on Nom-Steer regarding this matter.

So sorry to labour this with a couple of questions, however there is clearly much interest in the background of Nominet's DRS as this forum would indicate.

1) All the top level domain names .aero, .biz, .com, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, .net, and .org use ICANN's UDRP and 46 countries world wide use WIPO's "Domain Name Dispute Resolution Service for country code top level domains (ccTLDs)" which are either straight UDRP or based on UDRP.

With 46 countries (including some European countries) using WIPO's service, the question would be what the reason(s) were as to why Nominet decided to go it alone and develop its own unique system ? Especially as this would have avoided the costs/effort/specification of Nominet having to commission Nominet DRS software.

2) Concerning the selection of Taylor Smith Ltd. to develop the DRS management software, in response to a question asking how many other companies were considered, Lesley replied that it was her understanding that "there were other companies considered" although the number was not mentioned nor the formality of the selection process.

Could you advise approximately how many companies were considered and the reasons for the selection. For example, was it that Taylor Smith was the most experienced, or cheapest, or had the best proven track record of providing such software?​

Thank you.

 

[olebean]

Jay

I know that Lesley has already answered some questions on Nom-Steer regarding this matter.

So sorry to labour this with a couple of questions, however there is clearly much interest in the background of Nominet's DRS as this forum would indicate.

1) All the top level domain names .aero, .biz, .com, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, .net, and .org use ICANN's UDRP and 46 countries world wide use WIPO's "Domain Name Dispute Resolution Service for country code top level domains (ccTLDs)" which are either straight UDRP or based on UDRP.

With 46 countries (including some European countries) using WIPO's service, the question would be what the reason(s) were as to why Nominet decided to go it alone and develop its own unique system ? Especially as this would have avoided the costs/effort/specification of Nominet having to commission Nominet DRS software.

2) Concerning the selection of Taylor Smith Ltd. to develop the DRS management software, in response to a question asking how many other companies were considered, Lesley replied that it was her understanding that "there were other companies considered" although the number was not mentioned nor the formality of the selection process.

Could you advise approximately how many companies were considered and the reasons for the selection. For example, was it that Taylor Smith was the most experienced, or cheapest, or had the best proven track record of providing such software?​

Thank you.

K

I mentioned earlier in the thread, what the DRS' esteemed considers the reasons to be..... to curb the bloody minded cybersquatters...... However as Jay poo poos, what a cybersquatter was originally suggested to be has been extended out of all proportion....

The Taylor wassit issue, does just stop at the whys on the contract, it extends to why they took so long after being notified from external sources that taylor wassit should not be operating the website to deleting it.. That process took further reminders and a suggestion that nominet had "forgot" to delete it... Further to that how on earth did anyone not know the company changed names when they are dealing with them... married to them.... etc etc etc etc........

If it smells lke a rat it usually is a rat