RE: Re: OT: Domain Names LEGAL Stuff

["Nikola Kasic" <nikola@xxxxxxx>]

I know all that, but there are other similar ways, he doesn't have to repeat my words :-).

The point is that he might genuinly plan to use that domain and developing web site and project. If he didn't put anything on the web yet, doesn't need that he didn't start some work and invested some money and time with that name in mind.

I have some name for more than 2 years and didn't start using it yet. I still have the same idea, just didn't have time to put averything together. I would really be pissed off if someone comes and tells me that I didn't use it for 2 years and they want to buy it for £50.

If they are so smart, when they started their business, why they didn't buy that .com domain or contacted him immediately if he already had it registered. Why they waited year and a half.

I don't think that they have a strong case, even if his domain name is argos.com or similar.

Just my opinion.

Cheers,

Nik

-----Original Message-----
From: BUTLER, Tony, FM [mailto:roaming@xxxxxxx]
Sent: 09 August 2002 11:13
To: 'ukha_d@xxxxxxx'
Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Re: OT: Domain Names LEGAL Stuff

...and of course all these ideas have been discussed in a forum accessible
to the general public, so it would be easy for someone to print out all
these messages and say "Look your honour, he's only saying he was going to
start up a business because some guy suggested it on the internet" or "Look
your honour, he even said on this forum that he wasn't that bothered about
the name".

Tell em a grand and settle on 500 if you can get it......

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Lowe [mailto:ian@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 09 August 2002 10:53
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Re: OT: Domain Names LEGAL Stuff
>
>
> *except* on precedent of previous domain resolutions you
> *would* lose, and
> probably end up liable for their costs in the process too!!
>
> I am not a lawyer, but if this were me, I would just not take
> the risk.
>
> even if it was an ubercool domain name. ;)
>
> Ian.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Nikola Kasic [mailto:nikola@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 09 August 2002 10:43
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Re: OT: Domain Names LEGAL Stuff
>
>
> I would say that I just plan to start business and have web site in
> development stage with name in question, so redesigning it
> would cost me a
> money, and I would ask for £1,000-£2,000 at least. So you can
> buy something
> for that money, at least.
> £100 is really nothing, if they really want that name.
> Solicitor probably
> charges them £500 a day.
> Cheers,
> Nik
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ian Lowe [mailto:ian@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 09 August 2002 10:32
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Re: OT: Domain Names LEGAL Stuff
>
>
> Having followed a lot of the stories on the Register et al,
> it sounds very
> much like you would get spanked into the floor Martin :(
>
> Remember .com is *not* a US domain: it's a *global* domain.
> It's just the US mindset that makes it common for US only
> companies to use
> exclusively .com
>
> There is a specific .us heirarchy, just as there is a .uk,
> and post Sept 11,
> this seems to be really taking off.
>
> if you are registered after them, they are trading via the
> .co.uk and you
> have not made use of the .com in a non-infringing way, then
> if it went to
> domain arbitration, you *WOULD* lose.
>
> personally, I would take money and run.
>
> Ian.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin [mailto:ukha@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 08 August 2002 21:53
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx> Subject: RE: [ukha_d] Re: OT: Domain Names LEGAL Stuff
>
>
> OK, Thanks Mark
>
> Sounds like the course of action would be to transfer the
> domain to save
> any of us getting in the sh_t.
>
> The passing off bit might be iffy, the names were redirected initially
> but are not now. So would they have a case based on this ?
>
> There are so many if's ,my names were registered after theirs, maybe a
> case for passing off ?,  they are dot.com's - a US name after all, ,
> they do not hold the trademark, and heck so what if I'm not
> going to use
> the names just yet.
>
> If I transferred the names now would they have a case at all ?
>
>
> hmmm , I may just have to take the dosh and buy a useful HA gadget.
> Suggestions ?
>
> Regards
> Martin
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: mark_harrison_uk1 [mailto:Mark.Harrison@xxxxxxx]
> Sent: 08 August 2002 20:43
> To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx> Subject: [ukha_d] Re: OT: Domain Names LEGAL Stuff
>
>
>
> Bear in mind that I am NOT a lawyer, and that I am not qualified to
> give legal advice. However, I am a senior manager with overall
> responsibility for Domain Name registrations for a FTSE 100 company
> with significant web presences Europe-wide. The following, however,
> is my personal opinion, not that of my employer.
>
> Firstly, don't get hung up on the fact they use solicitors to do
> this - several solicitors these days have Intellectual Property
> practices that include Domain Name protection along with Trademark
> protection et al. The company may simply (as we do) simply have an
> outsourcing contract with this firm to do this - the fact they are
> solicitors is neither here nor there - the fact they are IP
> Consultants is...
>
> Personally, I think that £100 + transfer costs is fair, and my advice
> would be to take it. If the company is a large, household name, then
> they might go to £500 + transfer costs, but are very unlikely to go
> any higher.
>
> I feel that, actually, the company has acted reasonably in making you
> the initial offer. The fact that they have threated legal action has
> happened only AFTER you have refused to consider this. However, the
> fact that they have increased their offer suggests that they don't
> want to make a big deal out of this (but do wish to protect their IP.)
>
> As I see it as a laymam, there are a number of issues here. The key
> issue is that the UK legal system now very much frowns upon
> Cybersquatting - the deliberate registration of someone elses trading
> name with no intent to do anything other than sell on the domain name.
>
> However, work through the following:
>
> 1: When did you register the domain names? If you did so BEFORE they
> launched their business, then you could claim that your intention was
> to launch a service using that name. However, if you did so AFTER
> they launced their business, then they could (potentially
> succesfully - this has happened) argue that you only registered the
> name as a cybersquat.
>
> 2: If you have launched any service on the names that might cause
> confusion, then they would have a case under UK law to proceed
> against you for "passing off". If, however, there is nothing but a
> holding page, then you are unlikely to be deemed to have any
> liability in respect of passing off.
>
> 3: The fact that the names are .coms rather than .co.uks raises the
> question of whether the UK courts would have any jurisdiction. You
> could argue that .com is, according the the standard, intended for
> use by US Companies, and that the ONLY basis for challenging a
> registration is that a company has registered a FEDERAL (not State)
> trademark as the contested name, and that US courts would have
> jurisdiction.
>
> 4: What do you intend doing with the domains? If you haven't used
> them for the last 18 months, and demonstrably had no intention of
> doing so AND refused a good faith offer, then there IS a chance that
> the courts could find in their favour, and you'd be stuffed. The fact
> you posted HERE that you'd never used the domains, and "not bothered
> about the names" might be used in evidence to demonstrate that you
> had NOT registered them to set up your own service with that name.
>
> 5: Do THEY have the name registered as a UK trademark? If not, then I
> don't think they have a leg to stand on unless you're passing off
> (see above.)
>
> Regards,
>
> Mark
>
>
> --- In ukha_d@y..., "Alex Monaghan" <alex@m...> wrote:
> > I would guess that if you've paid your NIC fees and there's no
> trademark
> > infringement, the you can do what you like with your domains.
> >
> > If the only justification for legal action is that you've not used
> them
> > AND... you do really want the domains, then get a cheapo hosting
> account and
> > attach the names to it, put up a simple index.html and their
> argument is
> > blown out of the water :-) If you don't have one in mind, look back
> through
> > the archives for a post from Chris Bond with a subject of "web
> hosting
> > special offer" (or something similar), I transferred my domain on
> this offer
> > with no problems.
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Martin [mailto:ukha@o...]
> > > Sent: 08 August 2002 17:24
> > > To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx> > > Subject: RE: [ukha_d] OT: Domain Names LEGAL Stuff
> > >
> > >
> > > Hi all
> > >
> > > I'm hoping someone can help me out here, I have registered some
> domain
> > > names (about 18 months ago, and they are as yet unused). They are
> dot
> > > com's.
> > > A company has approached me who own the dot co.uk with the same
> name.
> > > They initially offered a small sum (£50 + transfers costs) via
> their
> > > solicitor, I said not interested. Now they are saying that I have
> not
> > > used the name and have no right too use it and their final offer
> is £100
> > > + transfer or they will take legal action !!!
> > >
> > > Heeelllp, should I say stick up your ..... or would it mean a
> legal
> > > challenge costing me loads which I may or may not win.
> > > At the end of the day I'm not that bothered about the name, is it
> best
> > > to take what they've offered and just leave it at that ?
> > >
> > > Or perhaps I'll transfer the name for someone else to use.....
> > >
> > > Cheers
> > > Martin.
> > >
> > >
> > > For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
> <http://www.automatedhome.co.uk>
> > > Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx> > > Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx> > > Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx> > > List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx> > >
> > > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>
> > >
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=228862.2128520.3581629.1829184/D=egroup
> web/S=1705
> 041992:HM/A=1182697/R=0/*http://adfarm.mediaplex.com/ad/ck/990
> -1736-1039
> -334>
>
> For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
> <http://www.automatedhome.co.uk>
> Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx> Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx> Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx> List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> Service.
>
>
>
>
> For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
> Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx> Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx> Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx> List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
> For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
> Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx> Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx> Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx> List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> For more information: http://www.automatedhome.co.uk
> Post message: ukha_d@xxxxxxx> Subscribe:  ukha_d-subscribe@xxxxxxx> Unsubscribe:  ukha_d-unsubscribe@xxxxxxx> List owner:  ukha_d-owner@xxxxxxx>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
>
>
>