Champions for DRS change

[rob]

Richard Martin used to run a drop catching service:

http://web.archive.org/web/20040602212413/www.yoursitehere.co.uk/monitor.php

Wonder how many TMs they caught ???

No Richard didn't used to operate yoursitehere's domain catching service, he was a reseller of it under the name domaincatch.co.uk I believe

Web.Archive shows sites but not the circumstances / full picture

Plus on that link apart from hotmail I cant spot any TM's on a quick nose through the list

 

[netserve]

I think Ed has gone to sit in a darkened room

I've not got as deep understanding as some about DRS but some aspects that make the system appear to be unfair are.

1) The respondents domain portfolio can be brought in and used against them as evidence.
This wouldn't happen in a court, the case is judged on it's own merits, not the respondents past 'convictions' or the fact that he's been naughty and registered 'bmwXXXX' in the past so he must be a serial TM infringer.

2) You buy a domain because you decide that it has value and then you have to extract the value from it by selling it, offering it for sale, advertising on it etc. This proves nothing, but to Nomient this proves you're a no good squatter, go directly to jail and loose the domain. What constitutes bad faith really needs to be reconsidered.

3) TradeMarks are odd beasts and my understanding is that TM rights don't just cover a word but extend to font, style, and are only relevant within an industry sector. ie "cre8" could exist as a TM for a design firm but it could also exist as a car brand and TM. We've seen a massive volume of registrations go through for sex.eu all supposedly protected by TM. Where does this end? Yes protect TM but there's a limit. How long will it be before we see A loose a DRS to B over TM infringement who then looses a DRS to C because they also claim a TM.

TM's a very specific, each one exists because it is unique. Domain names don't provide the same degree of differentiation, how will you cope if 50 companies all started a DRS because they claim TM rights over sex.co.uk

 

[richard]

The DRS policy is a good idea in theory, however it is shown in practice to be a tool for the financially better off to muscle their way to getting the domains they want

The recent increase of generic names being targetted by DRS claims and also when domains that are prior registered being taken by those who subsequently start a service using the names needs serious looking at

 

[richard]

No Richard didn't used to operate yoursitehere's domain catching service, he was a reseller of it under the name domaincatch.co.uk I believe

Web.Archive shows sites but not the circumstances / full picture

Plus on that link apart from hotmail I cant spot any TM's on a quick nose through the list

Hotmail was immediately given to Microsoft, they made no claim to it, I believe there is a theregister article regarding it

Also hotmail.co.uk has nothing to do with me; that was caught using the yoursitehere system but not for me

 

[Whois-Search]

arghh yes sorry Richard - always thought they were the same

http://web.archive.org/web/20040329045825/http://domaincatch.co.uk/

Dark Marketing used to be the number 1

Well you get my vote anyway !

 

[netserve]

Lets face it TM infringement just doesn't happen any more does it?

PS Anyone interested in .....

e-citroen.co.uk
e-fiat.co.uk
e-honda.co.uk
e-jeep.co.uk
e-mazda.co.uk
e-mitsubishi.co.uk
e-nissan.co.uk
e-peugeot.co.uk
e-subaru.co.uk

 

[Whois-Search]

Nothing is safe any more look at itunes.co.uk game.co.uk bounce.co.uk

You might as well register anything you like and if you have a problem let them have it for £750 ! DRS policy 21. (a)

 

[richard]

arghh yes sorry Richard - always thought they were the same

http://web.archive.org/web/20040329045825/http://domaincatch.co.uk/

Dark Marketing used to be the number 1

Well you get my vote anyway !

I stand as an independant, My election statement is hopefully pretty comprehensive

I should have added to it that I think nom-steer etc should be overhauled, what an old school way of communicating and mostly why I haven't used on it

 

[bb99]

I should have added to it that I think nom-steer etc should be overhauled, what an old school way of communicating and mostly why I haven't used on it

Funnily enough, only last week I suggested to Nominet that all the nom-* mailing lists be mothballed and replaced with a members/tagholders vBulletin (or whatever) forum.

Mailing lists are so "old economy"

 

[Whois-Search]

What gets me about Nom-Steer is this:

http://www.nominet.org.uk/digitalAssets/4166_January_meeting_report.pdf

8. Matters arising from nom-steer and pab suggest
There were no matters arising.

 

[rob]

Nothing is safe any more look at itunes.co.uk game.co.uk bounce.co.uk

You might as well register anything you like and if you have a problem let them have it for £750 ! DRS policy 21. (a)

Will you sell whoissearch.co.uk etc for 750 notes?

 

[Whois-Search]

Will you sell whoissearch.co.uk etc for 750 notes?

I'm not infringing any big company by owning it ?

But if I had billgates.co.uk and was using it for PPC traffic and "the richest man in the world" came along and threatened to sue my ass off i'd let him have it for £750

 

[netserve]

A classic example of where the expert goes beyond the call of duty to help the complainant (bounce.co.uk)

"The evidence does not provide an address for the registrant and is not conclusive that it is the same person as the Respondent in this Complaint."

Fine, so accept the lack of evidence and that part of the case not proved, but no....

" Further investigation...."

Eh, who is paying you to investigate further?

"Thus, the Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of registrations of domain names which correspond to well known marks"

NO, I think you indicated at the start a lack of evidence. It wasn't until you started doing your own columbo impression that you decided yourself that there was a link. So the complainant didn't demonstrate anything!

 

[Whois-Search]

And he only has that address because like all top domainers hes in a "Tax Haven"

http://www.nationalcolonyrealty.com/tax.html

 

[sneezycheese]

Well spotted...

" Further investigation...."

Eh, who is paying you to investigate further?

"Thus, the Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent is engaged in a pattern of registrations of domain names which correspond to well known marks"

NO, I think you indicated at the start a lack of evidence. It wasn't until you started doing your own columbo impression that you decided yourself that there was a link. So the complainant didn't demonstrate anything!

By the way...

The DRS Policy states under paragraph (2)(b) “The Complainant is required to prove to the expert that both elements are present on the balance of probabilities”.

So do we have MORE 'possible' breaches of contract under the DRS?

 

[netserve]

Not sure about that. What worried me about the result was that there appeared to be no reference by the 'expert' to the fact that the domain name was a generic domain name.

The fact that they claim that a bloke could register a domain name that relates to a washing powder is laughable. Mention bounce.co.uk to a bloke and the chances are his response is to ask if it relates to sports bras

 

[Whois-Search]

bounceometer:

http://www.shockabsorber.co.uk/bounceometer/shock.html

 

[tifosi]

bounceometer:

http://www.shockabsorber.co.uk/bounceometer/shock.html

hours of endless fun! lmao. which end of the scale do you start on!


Right... off topic alert!! back to the drs people. Nothing to look at here!

 

[Nigel]

Good point netserve - Bounce could be used in any number of ways e.g. trampolines.

I think the assumption that the domain was registered by Michael to deprive Proctor and Gamble of it is wrong. Surely the expert is aware that no decent single word generic name is available for anyone to reg. From time to time certain lapsed domains are released by Nominet, they appear for a few milli seconds, are pursued by a posse of domain investors, and get registered. Generic domains are a valuable asset whether or not it is also used to sell washing powder. Most single generic words have some form of TM registered by someone but those rights are only in specific categories. As long as the new registrant does not abuse that existing TM then I cannot see why the domain would be taken. Michael was not selling detergent and he wasn't trying to sell them the domain so I can't see why the expert sided with Proctor and Gamble. This decision is another warning sign to anyone who has built up a nice portfolio of good generic domains. The ludicrous 3 drs cases in 2 years rule is also going to hurt them. Also the decision recently by Nominet to publicly display the PRSS is just another sop to big business to assist them in snatching domains which is being used to the full.

There is a way this could be changed. Nominet has just received a major blow to its plans when it lost a major vote. Perhaps the members are getting wise to the way their domain industry is being run. The same members can surely change this DRS system. Pipex and Fasthosts and an army of tagholders would surely be able to introduce a better DRS - something more in line with .com decisions.

 

[Whois-Search]

I find it amazing that Pre-nom's can take years to sort out, yet when the registrant in a DRS doesn't reply they give him a few weeks.......