game.co.uk update?

[retired_member6]

Just got this, looks like they're moving in

Dear affiliate,

This email is to inform you that GAME.net will be changing to GAME.co.uk. During this transition there will be an effect on the amount of returning customers you would normally see which is due to the change of cookie.

To counter the possible loss in commissions GAME will be compensating for this and will be increasing our commission by 1% on each tier for a two week period.

Again apologies for any inconvenience.

If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact:

Kind regards,

The GAME affiliate team

 

[danx]

Big guys wee guys...

This is a mighty interesting debate guys and from reading a few posts in this thread it seems to me that Nominet and its independant experts are not working too well together.
I find it incredible the original owner of game.co.uk has lost this does not belong to anyone really type of name.
Not doubt there is some poor domainer out there that holds the reg to itchycoo.com and is going to lose it to a company one day because of its score on google.
I hope this decision on game.co.uk is not a landmark in the battle of the wee guys versus the big guys, if it is the internet has just got smaller and big business is taking out names that could do something else.

 

[domaingenius]

This is a mighty interesting debate guys and from reading a few posts in this thread it seems to me that Nominet and its independant experts are not working too well together.
I find it incredible the original owner of game.co.uk has lost this does not belong to anyone really type of name.
Not doubt there is some poor domainer out there that holds the reg to itchycoo.com and is going to lose it to a company one day because of its score on google.
I hope this decision on game.co.uk is not a landmark in the battle of the wee guys versus the big guys, if it is the internet has just got smaller and big business is taking out names that could do something else.

Personally I think the DRS is a total farce and Nominet should decide whether they are Judges/Courts or are a non proft making organisation involved in runnign the UK registry. They seem to happy and pleased to see it expanding and increasing in numbers, which is odd. I am not knocking ED personally, but some of his views are wrong;
"...The DRS does not have to be in line with the law - its based on its own rules - but actually it is generally in line with the law......"

BS.(1) So you are saying that Nominet/DRS does not have to comply with the laws of the land ?. At the end of the day Nominet,the drs and everyone else has the ultimate remedy of the law of the land. Yes Nominet can set its own rules of course, BUT that does not mean that it can flout the underlying laws of the UK, like unfair contract terms ,etc etc (2) It either is or IS'NT "in line" and from what ive seen some decisions seem to abide by TM laws and others dont. I think that generally some TM holders take the P when they know full well that a TM was ONLY granted because it had something distinctive about it in terms of colour, shape or something else. Take "Game" for example.
and look at their TM http://webdb1.patent.gov.uk/RightSi...&DMW_INPUTFORM=ibis/ohim.htm&ohimnum=E2300028
If they had tried to get TM on the word "game" with no distinctivness then
the PO would have told them to get lost, but they used it to get game.co.uk with no problem even though www.game.co.uk was not in pink colours.

DG

 

[Jac]

Personally I think the DRS is a total farce and Nominet should decide whether they are Judges/Courts or are a non proft making organisation involved in runnign the UK registry. They seem to happy and pleased to see it expanding and increasing in numbers, which is odd. I am not knocking ED personally, but some of his views are wrong;
"...The DRS does not have to be in line with the law - its based on its own rules - but actually it is generally in line with the law......"

BS.(1) So you are saying that Nominet/DRS does not have to comply with the laws of the land ?. At the end of the day Nominet,the drs and everyone else has the ultimate remedy of the law of the land. Yes Nominet can set its own rules of course, BUT that does not mean that it can flout the underlying laws of the UK, like unfair contract terms ,etc etc (2) It either is or IS'NT "in line" and from what ive seen some decisions seem to abide by TM laws and others dont. I think that generally some TM holders take the P when they know full well that a TM was ONLY granted because it had something distinctive about it in terms of colour, shape or something else. Take "Game" for example.
and look at their TM http://webdb1.patent.gov.uk/RightSi...&DMW_INPUTFORM=ibis/ohim.htm&ohimnum=E2300028
If they had tried to get TM on the word "game" with no distinctivness then
the PO would have told them to get lost, but they used it to get game.co.uk with no problem even though www.game.co.uk was not in pink colours.

DG

DG

I have a lot of sympathy for the viewpoint you have just expressed; I personally believe the DRS needs to be more people friendly (and I mean people like individuals, sole traders, and SMEs, who do not have the financial wherewithall of huge companies).

However, if you read through the game.co.uk dispute, it seems reasonably clear there is a litany of blunders on the respondent's side. If I remember correctly £100k was offered for this name at one stage, and with respect, I think logic should have dictated that was a fair offer... but apparently not (for the registrant at that time).

I personally think the game.co.uk dispute is a unique set of circumstances which (in hindsight) should have seen the name changing hands years ago and should have seen the then registrant making a fairly hefty return on investment. The evidence in this particular case suggests plain old-fashioned greed got in the way of what could have been a fairly lucrative deal, and lest you forget, there is a comedy of errors within the timeline of this one. So I think it would be unfair to label the DRS as a "total farce" because of this particular set of circumstances.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

 

[domaingenius]

DG

I have a lot of sympathy for the viewpoint you have just expressed; I personally believe the DRS needs to be more people friendly (and I mean people like individuals, sole traders, and SMEs, who do not have the financial wherewithall of huge companies).

However, if you read through the game.co.uk dispute, it seems reasonably clear there is a litany of blunders on the respondent's side. If I remember correctly £100k was offered for this name at one stage, and with respect, I think logic should have dictated that was a fair offer... but apparently not (for the registrant at that time).

I personally think the game.co.uk dispute is a unique set of circumstances which (in hindsight) should have seen the name changing hands years ago and should have seen the then registrant making a fairly hefty return on investment. The evidence in this particular case suggests plain old-fashioned greed got in the way of what could have been a fairly lucrative deal, and lest you forget, there is a comedy of errors within the timeline of this one. So I think it would be unfair to label the DRS as a "total farce" because of this particular set of circumstances.

Regards
James Conaghan
[PAB Member]

James

Agreed ,and I do not seek to rely on simply the game.co.uk debacle, more I think the points that I wish to highlight are (1) The DRS must decide whether it is following strict TM law or not. If it is then it should follow it by the letter. If it is not then it is a bit like making rules up (moving goalposts) as you go along. You see, if a complainant comes to DRS and says "I have a TM and...", THEN how can nominet then say,as they seem to by implication and decisions, "ok we will accept your complaint and let you use the fact you have a TM to invoke and make your complaint, BUT sorry poor respondent even though the complainant is allowed to invoke and use his TM to make the complaint AFTER THAT we are abandoning all reliance on TM law and we are in uncharted territory in which we make or own rules up" That is what I think is wrong as DRS seeks to play both sides at once. (2) I think Nominet should get the hell out of the increasing size of complaints and hand it to an INDEPENDENT third party ,like the new patent ofice procedure and base it on their TM laws that they have built up over years !!. To be honest if you asked someone to advise if the DRS complied with Art 6.1 Human Rights Acts then I bet you it would fail. I know it doesnt have to ,but it would fail. A similar decisin was made by the Courts last year or so in regard to the corrupt methods by which the Bar Council of England and Wales (the most incestuous and corrupt self serving organisation you could meet) decides complaints against barristers and some of the ruling could apply to the DRS, if you were a public body. I would like to see a legal challenges to the DRS along the lines of lack of independence of Nominet from the procedures and appointments etc asI dont think Nominet would stand a chance of defending it.

Thats it really. So WHEN can we expect some changes ??.

DG

 

[olebean]

DG

As much as I whole heartedly agree with you there are other issues here and its not like I normally empathise with Nominet.

The Phone4u case summed it up, if judges can interpret the law incorrectly how on earth could we expect Ed, the experts etc to.. In some ways I understand the position they have taken in "narrowing the band of TM". Its not as if they could afford numerous high profile court cases against large organisations...

Yes, I am sure some will point to the DRS review and say will they are listening etc, that saddly opens further questions...

Training the experts??
Erm are these not meant to be experts?
If they need training does that mean it is plausible that previous training was inadequate?
Does that mean there is a possiblility that inadequate training and expertise may have cause incorrect decisions?
Who is going to train them and in what areas?
What makes them more of an expert than an expert?

etc etc etc

In answer to your question

Thats it really. So WHEN can we expect some changes ??.

IMO don't expect any significant "DRS decision making" changes... Until they are forced to..

 

[domaingenius]

DG

As much as I whole heartedly agree with you there are other issues here and its not like I normally empathise with Nominet.

The Phone4u case summed it up, if judges can interpret the law incorrectly how on earth could we expect Ed, the experts etc to.. In some ways I understand the position they have taken in "narrowing the band of TM". Its not as if they could afford numerous high profile court cases against large organisations...

Yes, I am sure some will point to the DRS review and say will they are listening etc, that saddly opens further questions...

Training the experts??
Erm are these not meant to be experts?
If they need training does that mean it is plausible that previous training was inadequate?
Does that mean there is a possiblility that inadequate training and expertise may have cause incorrect decisions?
Who is going to train them and in what areas?
What makes them more of an expert than an expert?

etc etc etc

In answer to your question



IMO don't expect any significant "DRS decision making" changes... Until they are forced to..

To be honest I dislike Judges and Courts as much as the DRS system, and I think that the best thing for all concerned would be if Nominet decided that they are not interested in being informal dispute resolvers and hand it all on a plate for the Patent office to carry out in compliance with strict TM laws. That way domainers would not lose names that are not a direct contravention of TM laws and complainants could'nt institute or win proceedings that they would not win under TM laws. Clearly Nominet could set the ground rules to a degree and then could concentrate on the issue of running a Registry. I would be interested to hear a simple straight reply from Nominet as to WHY they could not accept such a proposal ?.

DG

 

[olebean]

DG

Would you want to hand over control?

As we know alot of their decisions are based on T&C, which are vague in the extreme, not what constitues measures of goodwill etc I am unsure whether the Patent office would be able to resolve all issues..