Probably should have posted this in the "Bounce" appeal decision thread but it seems to have amalgamated with this one so here goes!
Having read results from similar DRS cases, it seems that Nominet will always find for the complainant if the respondent has been shown to indulge in a pattern of abusive registrations in the past. This clearly runs counter to any known rule of (English) law that I am aware of, where evidence from previous incidents is not allowed to be considered as part of the evidence for the current case. If it were so in a court of law then many an innocent individual would have been sent to their doom, condemned by some coincidental evidence from a past incident.
Furthermore, Michael Toth quite rightly asserted that even if one were to take into account the above, the bounce.co.uk is clearly one of his generic domain names, with which I think we would all wholeheartedly agree.
Although Nominet claim that DRS is not a court of law, but a quick method of resolution avoiding use of the courts, why do they insist on not following clearly laid down and understood rules of law arrived at by hundreds of years of combined wisdom. Innocent until proven guilty. The DRS clearly works the other way around. Guilty until proven innocent.
This is clearly a bad decision as there is no evidence whatsoever that the registration was made in an abusive manner (regardless of what you may think of other registrations in Michael's portfolio). The "experts" always appear to swoon over evidence presented by compainants of how many x millions have been spent on advertising, and how this incontravertibly establishes a complainant's right in the name. Corporate arrogance or what? What hope does any of us ordinary mortals stand in refuting this if advertising spend is taken as a measure of rights in a wholly a generic word or phrase?
Why do the "experts", in their arrogance, assume that Toth must have known of the brand when he registered the name. I forever need to ask who such and such a celebrity is, despite their so-called celebrity, as I take no interest in who they are or what they do, and so it could be for any household product unless you have a need to use it. The panel themselves say, sexistly, that Bounce is a product universally known by "housewives", so by their own yardstick, why should Michael be aware of the brand. Are you a housewife, Michael?
Come on Nominet. For God's sake stop playing the lapdog to big business whenever they stamp their foot. No one should have to justify having to defend the ownership of a truly generic word or phrase in a domain name, regardless of any use of that word by another business. The internet truly is the World Wide Web, and encompasses truly universal use of all language. It's not another arena that should be muscled in on by anyone with enough money and weight to sweep justice aside and get exactly what they want by stamping their big feet.
The main lesson at the end of it all: Don't be caught with any name in your portfolio that can rationally be described as using a trademark (lotussportscars.co.uk etc) as in reality this will be the sole deciding factor in any DRS case against you, regardless of any fair and rational evidence that you provide to the contrary. The DRS has again shown itself incapable of making a fair or rational decision when big business flexes it's muscles.
