grandin said:
A compromise with the EU would have been this....Every single word in the dictionary, along with surnames, first names, places etc.... are left out of prior rights...........rights do not just belong to Trade Mark holders because every tom, dick or harry uses them
Lee,
Do you really really mean
every single word in the dictionary? Blimey! If I remember correctly there's a whole team of editors constantly updating the dictionary on a daily basis, so it is conceivable that trying to monitor every single word could be its own nemesis... but I see your point.
grandin said:
String of words...polo mints.....polo cars.....toysrus....are less likely to be used in common by others so prior rights are more likely....this would certainly reduce the abuse........saying that I think it is morally incorrect to prejudge abuse before it occurs.....as Nominet say themselves the proportion of drs cases is very small...or are you or Nominet saying that the first come first served in respect to the co.uk is a mistake??
I agree it is morally incorrect to prejudge abuse before it occurs with the proviso that certain precedents for abuse have already been established in Law. On your question of first come first served (FCFS) Nominet says
here that: "Also, bear in mind that when you register a domain name, you are agreeing to abide by Nominet's
Terms and Conditions. These require that you declare that the registration does not infringe the rights of others."
Nominet also says
here under 4.2 that: "We will accept applications which comply with the Rules and register Domain Names on a first come first served basis. This means that, except where set out in the SLD Rules, we will not vet your application."
Personally, I cannot see how you can offer a FCFS service without some preconditions and I think Nominet is as fair as can reasonably be expected in saying you must declare that the registration does not infringe the rights of others. If you go back to 1997 and view the domain names cited in the One In A Million case, I think it is reasonably clear that these domain names did indeed infringe the rights of the various companies making complaint.
grandin said:
If VW were not given polo.eu and it went to a guy who on a first come first served basis used it for a polo sport website.....are you saying this was unfair? Would VW be able to claim it in a court of law? I say no so why has it happened...it is morally incorrect
On your first point re "polo.eu". Ralph Lauren and Nestle and others all lost out to VW on "polo.eu" and as an aside, Land Rover also lost out to the Discovery Channel on "discovery.eu" though technically both companies had a right to the domain. Apparently 330,000 applications sought the same 235,000 .eu domain names; so does that mean that 95,000 are potential domain name disputes, where 2 or more entities have tried to register the same domain name? The mind boggles; where does FCFS start and end?
It may not be morally correct but isn't that why we have courts of law, to be 'legally correct'? Unfortunately, the law is not just, it is just legal; and I suppose that in itself is morally incorrect (but that's a philosophy argument, not a legal one). So when you suggested on another thread that "The value of settling out of court through diplomatic resolution is the right answer"... isn't the ultimate answer of what is fair and what isn't, a matter that may have to be addressed by the DRS or the courts? FCFS in itself will inevitably create unintentional infringements because not everybody registering a particular name will know whether someone else thinks they have rights to it or not. The DRS and the courts can only address these issues after the event but someone then has to make a decision that is (possibly) never going to be palatable to the loser.
Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]