TomCruise.com

[Beasty]

Some interesting points argued - and perhaps not as obvious as it might at first have seemed.

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0560.html

 

[Jac]

Don't kid a kidder ...

Some interesting points argued - and perhaps not as obvious as it might at first have seemed.

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0560.html

I'd agree that nothing is ever as obvious as it first seems, but I don't really agree with your assertion that "some interesting points" were argued. The points the respondent argued were pretty weak in my opinion. For instance, to argue that the use of www.tomcruise.com was "non-commercial" when it pointed at a commercial for-profit celebrity website, was almost comical.

In the end these points stand out from this decision:

"The use of tomcruise.com was not a “legitimate noncommercial or fair use”.

"It was not “noncommercial” because the use was predominantly for the purpose of generating advertising revenues."

"The TOM CRUISE trademark was effectively being used to promote other celebrities and, predominantly, advertising of third-party products."

Re the Decision:
"For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <tomcruise.com>, be transferred to the Complainant."

So I fail to see what is not obvious in this case.

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[grandin]

what is obvious

What is obvious (in my personal opinion) is that Jac is going to great lengths to persuade Acorn members that Nominet are acting in good faith. I don't understand why you would do that? There seems to be alot of misunderstanding by Acorn members...so much so that it takes daily assertions by yourself .

Things don't add up to me but then I run busineses that are subject to competition ie. self regulating....if I didnt give a good service they go elsewhere.

Lee

 

[Jac]

What is obvious (in my personal opinion) is that Jac is going to great lengths to persuade Acorn members that Nominet are acting in good faith. I don't understand why you would do that? There seems to be alot of misunderstanding by Acorn members...so much so that it takes daily assertions by yourself .

Things don't add up to me but then I run busineses that are subject to competition ie. self regulating....if I didnt give a good service they go elsewhere.

Lee

Lee

Jac is indeed saying that Nominet act in good faith. That said, I am sure they make mistakes; don't we all? However, if you say they do not act in good faith the inference is you think they act in bad faith ... and if you say that openly on a pubic forum it is probably libel.

Just because you don't like the way a company does a certain thing it does not give you (or anyone else) the right to badmouth them on a public forum.

And just as I would be jumping up and down if I perceived a wrong-doing on Nominet's part, I will jump up and down defending them from malicious comments when I perceive them to be doing what they said they'd do; and I mean to say that they said they would respond to the needs of their customers and stakeholders. That's what they do... and sure as eggs are not, they will get it wrong at times just as you and I do.

Just because you and a few other people have a personal grievance does not mean you are right in your thinking, nor has it been proven you are right. If you want to be right, start by being righteous!

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Beasty]

I'd agree that nothing is ever as obvious as it first seems, but I don't really agree with your assertion that "some interesting points" were argued. The points the respondent argued were pretty weak in my opinion. For instance, to argue that the use of www.tomcruise.com was "non-commercial" when it pointed at a commercial for-profit celebrity website, was almost comical.

In the end these points stand out from this decision:

"The use of tomcruise.com was not a “legitimate noncommercial or fair use”.

"It was not “noncommercial” because the use was predominantly for the purpose of generating advertising revenues."

"The TOM CRUISE trademark was effectively being used to promote other celebrities and, predominantly, advertising of third-party products."

Re the Decision:
"For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the domain name, <tomcruise.com>, be transferred to the Complainant."

So I fail to see what is not obvious in this case.

I agree the "non-commercial" point is not that interesting.

I was more interested in the comparison of earlier decisions involving the same Registrant - which had gone both ways; the question of whether the commercial use as a "celbrity information" site was a bona fide offering of goods and services akin to a gossip mag (if I read it correctly this fell down due to the lack of serious development of the Tom Cruise part of the site, or alternatively a genuine stand alone Tom Cruise site); and the discussion about delay and acquiescence.

Put it another way - the panelist (or "judge" according to the BBC!) is not saying only Tom Cruise could own and use tomcruise.com commercially - it's just that this use (and pattern of similar "use") fails the requisite tests. Given that Tom Cruise is about as famous as you can get, that is quite interesting to me - though I probably need to get out more!

 

[grandin]

confused

yes very confusing. Have we been slanderous in our comments? Are Nominet going to file for deformation on the back of a public forum that I was directed to? What is the purpose of such a directive if then they use that to take court action?

What are you actually asserting this time...it aint clear to me?

I have no interest is doing other peoples jobs, all I do is merely highlight issues with a structure that doesn't look efficient...if they or a government body dont want to take it up thats down to them.

Given that so many stakeholders are linked to Nominet then I would have expected the operations to be a tad better.

FACTS : The error rate on original decisons when subject to an appeal is high....given the drs has been in existence many years and so many advising on it then yes I do assert it should be better....I personally wouldn't run it...so many heads involved for so many years.

As for the PAB jac....whats this about having a meeting to discuss whats the purpose of the PAB...advise on how to advise?

If I remember rightly the PAB members did not understand that they should be taking emails regarding issues over the running of Nominet...do you understand your obligations as a PAB member?

Furthermore, can you clarify when I decided to change my election pledge? A PAB member asserted that I was going to amend it...when I didn't?

Lee

 

[Jac]

I agree the "non-commercial" point is not that interesting.

I was more interested in the comparison of earlier decisions involving the same Registrant - which had gone both ways;

I think times change and the way these issues are judged today, is not necessarily how they were judged last year or a few years ago; just as it is entirely possible the courts might not judge the same issues in today's world as they might have done a while ago.

that is quite interesting to me - though I probably need to get out more!

Me too! :-D

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[Jac]

yes very confusing. Have we been slanderous in our comments?

Slander is spoken, libel is written. That aside, I don't know if you were being libellous for sure, because IANAL. I only suggested "probably".

What are you actually asserting this time...it aint clear to me?

Nothing much seems to be Lee.

I have no interest is doing other peoples jobs, all I do is merely highlight issues with a structure that doesn't look efficient...if they or a government body dont want to take it up thats down to them.

Given that so many stakeholders are linked to Nominet then I would have expected the operations to be a tad better.

The operations seem to be reasonably fine in around 5 million cases. A few flaws do not make a thing inefficient, it just makes it open to improvement.

As for the PAB jac....whats this about having a meeting to discuss whats the purpose of the PAB...advise on how to advise?

That particular meeting could be to the benefit of all stakeholders but if you are going to hold everything up to ridicule there's not a lot of point in discussing any of it with you, is there?

Regards
James Conaghan

 

[grandin]

jac

Jac, I thank you for all your answers to my questions.

I personally think you have done a grand job. You are a great spokesperson for the internet community.

I now close my book and start fresh tomorrow.

Lee