Bounce.co.uk appeal decision

[olebean]

the citigroup case is on the nominet website...apparently we should read it as part of our contract.

Saying that the high court judge didnt know you cant own a domain name

domain name ownership is as confusing as my mrs

Cant believe this thread has has 1000+ views

Lee

Lee/ Hoey

considering the phone4u case is in contrast to citigroup in many areas IMO it is unlikely unless you really are taking the p*** your going to get sued (dont touch dell)

 

[domaingenius]

One thing I have learnt, you can never ever know how the Courts will rule. Ive been involved in a number of cases, 99.9% as the claimant, but in one case a counterclaim succeeded saying that I libelled "mickey mouse" and the only way you could find out who "mickey mouse" actually was would be to get an IP and go to Court and get a Court order to find that out, so please never think you can anticipate a court decision.By the way, they were not awarded any damages.

DG

 

[olebean]

DG


Uk or American court?


OB

 

[domaingenius]

Ob

Uk

Dg

 

[Jac]

Saying that the high court judge didnt know you cant own a domain name

Where does it say that?

domain name ownership is as confusing as my mrs

Fair comment... seems to be getting that way... and I hasten to add I don't know your Mrs!

Cant believe this thread has has 1000+ views

Rights and wrongs are very subjective issues and there will always be different viewpoints. That's why we need experts and judges; to make hard decisions when people can't informally agree on a solution.

As an aside, I personally think "expert" is the wrong term for DRS deciders, but that's another story.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[grandin]

citigroup case

Point 11 last sentence:-

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/4432_Global_Projects_case_law.pdf

Incorrect statement according to the contract. The judge didnt read the contract either

Lee

 

[Jac]

Point 11 last sentence:-

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/4432_Global_Projects_case_law.pdf

Incorrect statement according to the contract. The judge didnt read the contract either

Lee

Seems to me the judge went to some lengths to emphasise he didn't know too much about the workings of Nominet. His comment about trying to register a .com through Nominet kind of highlights that lack of knowledge. However, he seemed to lean heavily on the "One In A Million" precedent which (IMO) lacked a real understanding of Nominet too. However, he also said (Para 12) that "The courts have been consistently unsympathetic" to certain practices.

The problem with contracts has always been that you don't have to read them to be legally bound by them. The act of accepting a domain name binds you to the contract of registration; it is the same for gTLDs too. That's why it is always advisable to read them in the first place.

That said, there are exceptions in consumer law and I am personally always prepared to see things challenged. IANAL but business contracts differ significantly, and the following would probably not apply.

The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 states:

• A consumer is not bound by a standard term in a contract with a seller or supplier if that term is unfair.
  
• A standard term is unfair if it creates a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights under the contract, to the detriment of the consumer, contrary to the requirement of good faith.
  
• All terms (including core terms) must be in plain intelligible language otherwise they are open to challenge as unfair.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Whois-Search]

As an aside, I personally think "expert" is the wrong term for DRS deciders, but that's another story.

How about "Willoughby & Partners"

 

[grandin]

want it better

James, its better for everyone if its a bit more controlled and I dont mean government controlled but a helping hand from those that can make a difference...thats all I want anyway

Lee

 

[sneezycheese]

As an aside, I personally think "expert" is the wrong term for DRS deciders, but that's another story.

...You and me both bud.

In my life I've worked with some 'real' experts. These guys (and gals) really know their stuff (that's why they're key players in the biggest companies on this planet), and like any 'true' expert you can not really argue with their conclusions - That's because they're really that good!

...Unlike some others I could mention.

 

[Whois-Search]

They are talking about this case now on Nom-Steer if anyone wants to join in

http://www.nominet.org.uk/other/lists/nom-steer/

 

[Whois-Search]

How safe are the following domains now ?

bold.co.uk - company website
daz.co.uk - owned by Daz Jones
bounty.co.uk - redirects to bounty.com
fairy.co.uk - PPC search page
flash.co.uk - Empire Direct homepage
braun.co.uk - not used

All "generic" words but all P&G products.

Going on the bounce.co.uk case they should win:

fairy.co.uk
flash.co.uk
braun.co.uk

??????

 

[Creature]

crime

Was the crime not opening the post in the morning ?

The fact is that he who generates the most tax for the government shall win (imo).

Why do you only get a few months (or whatever it is) to respond to the complaint? It should be a lot longer especially when the only crime here seems to be a delay in the response.

The report seems very one sided in favour of of the washing powder makers.

 

[disruptive]

I really feel like taking companies on...perhaps I'll register a trademark for a name that I really take the shine too. It might take some research but I can do it....trouble is it might be one of you guys that own it.

 

[texidriver]

even a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes

"It is believed that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such behaviour, evidenced by the fact that the Respondent presently holds 2793 ‘.co.uk’ domain names, many of which appear to correspond to the trade mark rights of third parties.

– he therefore has a track record of hijacking other people’s names.

A previous decision was made against the Respondent in 2003 [sic], ordering the transfer of the website universityoflondon.co.uk to the lawful owner of that name (DRS 1740).

The Respondent has established no legitimate interest under the Domain Name and appears to have engaged in passing off by registering domain names that correspond to the trade mark rights of third parties. This evidences Abusive Registration."

http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/DRS/bounce appeal.pdf



"Although some of the domain names registered by Respondent do raise questions, a bare list of domain names without evidence of how they are being used and whether they reflect bad faith, and a single adverse decision, do not make a pattern. Moreover, even if it were a pattern, and even if Respondent was found to have been a cybersquatter in another case, the question in this case is whether Respondent has cybersquatted this Domain Name.

(decisions against same respondent in other actions is not necessarily relevant because “[e]ven a blind pig finds an acorn sometimes”)."

the Complaint is denied."

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0445.html

DRS or UDRP. some experts are more expert.

 

[aqls]

Nice one texi.

Incidentally, the reason he didn't reply to Nominet emails in the first place was to establish categorically that there were other more pertinent interpretations of the term bounce . . .

-aqls-

 

[Whois-Search]

I'm not sure who did the PRSS lookup on Michael Toth's names (which you have to pay an extra £400 + VAT for http://www.nominet.org.uk/other/prss/) but the problem is it's written into the DRS policy:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/disputes/drs/policy/

3. C. iii. The Complainant can demonstrate that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of registrations where the Respondent is the registrant of domain names (under .uk or otherwise) which correspond to well known names or trade marks in which the Respondent has no apparent rights, and the Domain Name is part of that pattern;

"Pattern" only appears in the UDRP at:

4.b.(ii) you have registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct;

http://www.icann.org/udrp/udrp-policy-24oct99.htm

 

[aqls]

so change policy.

-aqls-

 

[grandin]

It differs

The case also notes: Because the Policy requires a showing of both bad-faith registration and bad-faith use

This differs to the DRS where it seems it can be one or the other or both