Re-registered Domains Not "abusive Registrations"

[TopNames.com]

I got this from http://www.demys.net/

18th February, 2003

Zara Holdings Limited - former registrants of a desirable three letter .co.uk domain - have lost a domain name dispute under Nominet's Dispute Resolution Service. The action was brought after Zara did not renew their name allowing it to be re-registered by a domain speculator.

Zara Holdings registered zhl.co.uk in February 1999 but failed to renew it two years later and, in line with .uk rules, the domain was "detagged" when it expired. .uk domains are detagged when a registration service provider - normally an ISP - "no longer has a relationship with the registrant to provide services for that domain name," i.e. when a registrant doesn't pay the renewal fees. The domain then effectively falls under the direct management of the UK naming authority Nominet, who will then attempt to contact the registrant. In the meantime the domain cannot be used for email and web services, which normally results in the registrant being alerted and a panicked employee ringing Nominet to renew it.

However, even though Nominet wrote directly to one of Zara's directors they still did not renew the domain, leading to it being finally deleted in October, 2001. The domain was then registered by the Respondent later the same day and put up for public auction. Eight months later, Zara finally instigated proceedings under the DRS having noticed they had lost their domain.

Regular readers of Demys.net will be aware that under the DRS, a Complainant must show that:

i. The Complainant has Rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to the Domain Name; and

ii. The Domain Name, in the hands of the Respondent, is an Abusive Registration

Although complaining that there was "a lack of detail in the complaint", the Expert held that Zara probably had rights in the name for the two year registration period due to its use on their headed notepaper and advertising materials. Critically however, later when the domain was registered by the respondent after it was detagged, the Expert held that Zara had not shown enough evidence that they still had rights in the name. Therefore on addressing abusive registration, he noted:

There were … no rights of which the Respondent could take unfair advantage or to which he could be unfairly detrimental at the time when the registration took place…

There is no evidence in the case to show that the use of the ZHL name was widespread or high profile at the time of the Respondent's registration such that the Respondent could be expected to have heard of it.

In other words, the Complainant had neglected their domain and allowed any rights they may have had in it to lapse. Therefore the re-registration by the Respondent of such a short and generic domain could not have been an abusive registration.

This case highlights the importance of properly managing names - domains are not bought but are, in effect, operated under contract, or "rented", from the naming authority. They need to be actively renewed and contact details kept up to date. Otherwise a business can find itself without web and email services, without their desirable domain, and - this case shows - with little prospect of its recovery.

[Banned: bidawinner]

How on earth can a company just ignore the fact that their domain is about to drop and not do anything about until "after" the fact..

It was a good decision.. basically sounds like Nominet's is refusing to be these companies babysitter...

thanks for the link Tops..

[jberryhill]

http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2002-1167.html

[Banned: DrWho]

Originally posted by jberryhill
http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...2002-1167.html

Excellent!