paramount_co_uk

[max_rk]

Simple solution to protect your self from fake claims

Maybe he was just dismissive of it all and didn't believe there was much chance of it being ruled against him.

I would guess he is probably now appealing.



What were main deciding factors is what would worry me.

A lot of domains have a history of being parked at sedo.

It's easy to manufacture a fake domain broker to contact you.

Would denying all knowledge of the broker as the domain owner, true or not, be enough to defend yourself from the claim?

I didn't think it was so easy to take a domain from someone.

To protect your domain from parking history you can disallow Wayback Machine robot from crawling the site. There won’t be anything to see on archive.org

Fake broker on its own won’t be enough to have successful DRS.


Max Karpis

 

[foz]

Registrant is still "A Hugh". I suspect this one is going to Appeal.

 

[WealdDomains]

Bad use being what though, simply parking it? anyone who has ever had their domain parked at sedo is risking that.

I see it as being about exploitation (eg parking monetisation) of a well-known trademark. Parking, say, the word "orang." should be fine for affiliate online delivery of citrus fruit from supermarkets and tins of reddish-yellow paint from DIY chains, but not for (branded non-generic) usage referring to mobile phones from the O company or a competitor. Parking (with Sedo or anyone else) is only ever about operational delegation, not abdication of responsibility.

 

[Retired_Member38]

I've bought for 6 figures but never sold at that level.

I'm only going on what I can see in this thread with no real research... but to me the attempted sale looks ill thought out on multiple levels. It just doesn't surprise me that he's lost the domain in what appears to be a crass attempt to gouge someone on their own trademark.

 

[websaway]

A name parked with sedo seems to be set so that all subdomains typed in resolve to the name for sale.
so for instance jockeys.com
You can type the sub domain www.Kempton.jockeys.com or Ladbroke.jockeys.com and it will take you to the for sale page.

Could this cause trademark infringement or passing off for certain domains ?

example: if you parked search.com and it resolved to www.google.search.com

 

[Murray]

whois shows it's registered to Paramount Pictures Corporation now.

 

[bulkcorn]

whois shows it's registered to Paramount Pictures Corporation now.

... must be very painful for Hugh. ......botched sale tactics and defence, in my opinion.

 

[Retired_Member38]

For Home Entertainment try these sponsored links:

Is that not a user selected category? I don't know if it is or not, but if it is surely thats is a pretty good indication of bad intent?

 

[max_rk]

For Home Entertainment try these sponsored links:

Is that not a user selected category? I don't know if it is or not, but if it is surely thats is a pretty good indication of bad intent?

Around that period sedo’s employees have been optimising keywords for clients and sedo have had automated keyword selection mechanism.

In my opinion it is self selected. I don’t think Sedo is that "creative".

In one case I argued that keyword was selected by Sedo. Thanks to Sedo, by request they kindly sent me email to confirmed that keyword has been selected automatically and have not been changed since. This helped to argue that Respondent haven’t intentionally targeted Complainant’s registered or unregistered rights.

Max Karpis

 

[foz]

In one case I argued that keyword was selected by Sedo. Thanks to Sedo, by request they kindly sent me email to confirmed that keyword has been selected automatically and have not been changed since. This helped to argue that Respondent haven’t intentionally targeted Complainant’s registered or unregistered rights.

Likewise I had Frank Schilling do a sworn testimony on the inner workings of parked page landers and upstream provider behavior to absolve my circumstance. The expert agreed. Adam of Adlex headed the defense. I see this paramount decision as theft by pen, an absolute shocker!

 

[max_rk]

I asked this above and have now had the opportunity to look at the archive.org history. There are two pages with links which could have been considered detrimental to respondents case.

26th November 2005 http://web.archive.org/web/20051126064135/http://www.paramount.co.uk/
10th December 2005 http://web.archive.org/web/20051210024424/http://www.paramount.co.uk/

It seems entirely reasonable to presume that the potentially detrimental links were on display for 15 days but there is no evidence that they were on display outside of that. There is also no apparent evidence of the actual content any of those links actually linked to. I can see the obviously words which might have caused concern for Paramount Pictures. Are those words and URLs *alone* sufficient to demonstrate what was really on the other end of the respective click-thru's? I don't see how the complainant could have provided the expert with evidence detailing the actual web pages resulting from click-thru's, 8 years after they were logged by archive.org. Those pages would have long since become invalid.

It concerns me that an expert can take such limited and incomplete records, captured 8 years prior, and factor it into a DRS decision as they have been. If I were an expert I think I might have wanted to have seen more than was probably shown before I factored two links from archive.org into my opinion(decision) so highly.

These are good points.

Is it really enough just to have links and not evidence of web pages of those links? Respondent did not chalange this so Expert must assume that those links have been in working order and content was as described on that page. Even with no evidence I think that is enough.

Assuming that pages in archive.org are close copy of pages of that time (can be challenged). The words used on those pages describe some of the products and services offered by Complainant to which Complainant has registered and unregistered rights under Paramount name.

Descriptions and links may have given false sense to visitors that they have landed on page controlled by Complainant.

Max Karpis

 

[max_rk]

I see this paramount decision as theft by pen, an absolute shocker!

Sorry, I do not agree. Expert is not a researcher for Respondent or Complainant. Expert have been given complaint and response, this is all he/she has to work with.

Decision could have gone other way, Respondent gave very poor response.

 

[foz]

Respondent gave very poor response.

And that itself is interesting as Hugh's has used Adam in the past.

 

[max_rk]

Andy used to make very good defence on his own as well.

 

[foz]

Sorry, I do not agree. Expert is not a researcher for Respondent or Complainant. Expert have been given complaint and response, this is all he/she has to work with.

Decision could have gone other way, Respondent gave very poor response.

The complainant are the thieves!

 

[Retired_Member38]

The complainant are the thieves!

I think if anyone was acting poorly, it was the person trying to sell someones own trademark back to them for 6 figures.

 

[foz]

I think if anyone was acting poorly, it was the person trying to sell someones own trademark back to them for 6 figures.

"Paramount" is a word. F**k TM owners.

more important than anything else; supreme.

having supreme power.

 

[websaway]

"Paramount" is a word. F**k TM owners.

more important than anything else; supreme.

having supreme power.

You need to stand back and look at this from a legal point of view.
And perhaps read the decision again.
There are a number of issues to consider, not just one.

 

[Retired_Member38]

Sure its a word... but when you factor in suspect past use of the domain, suspect use of a broker, suspect change of ownership & suspect pricing of the domain its starting to perhaps show what the real intent was?

Nobody can say for certain... but there are multiple signals pointing towards it all being a bit fishy.

 

[bulkcorn]

The defence was so poor the loss of that name pained me ! If I were to be pushing for xxxxxx for a name and had to defend its ownership, I'd go armed to the teeth! Registrant had all the time in the world to have protected that investment!