Worst Decision Ever: - Page 2 - DNForum - Domain Sales, Domain Forum, Domain Appraisals, Domain Registrars

**NightLinks** · 04-18-2008, 03:26 PM

I had a question similar to this case a few days ago. The question was if domainers risk of having their domain names taken away only because that person is a domainer.

**jasdon11** · 04-18-2008, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aZooZa

Correct decision IMHO. Beefeaters is gin. End of.

Take a step back.

Beefeaters are guards. End of.

Fact remains - the site was not promoting gin, so where TF is bad faith?

**draggar** · 04-18-2008, 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasdon11

Fact remains - the site was not promoting gin, so where TF is bad faith?

I think it is a combination of the domain itself and the fact that it was parked (according to the description in the case, it sounds like the domain was parked) and could be lead to make people believe that it was the Gin. They probabaly also concluded that since the domain was for sale (as per the wording in the complaint) that it is bad faith.

Now, honestly, I don't agree with the ruling. BeefEaters can be considered a generic term and the site was clearly targeted towards beef eaters (people who eat beef). The domain in itself was NOTinfringing on a trademark nor was it, in any way, deceptively making people think they were at BeefEater Gin's website unless for some reason they associate gin with beef.

As for the other Beefeater and Beefeaters orginizations, they were not the first one in line.

**aZooZa** · 04-18-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasdon11

Take a step back.

Beefeaters are guards. End of.

Fact remains - the site was not promoting gin, so where TF is bad faith?

So what miltary regiment has a TM or claim to one in the UK? Keen to know... I donated royalregimentofscotland.com/.co.uk (upon the Scots amalgamation years ago) to the military - no TM issue at all. Beefeaters are also people that indulge in the 'eating of beef' but there's no commercial TM. That's the 'end of'.

**jasdon11** · 04-18-2008, 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aZooZa

So what miltary regiment has a TM or claim to one in the UK? Keen to know... I donated royalregimentofscotland.com/.co.uk (upon the Scots amalgamation years ago) to the military - no TM issue at all. Beefeaters are also people that indulge in the 'eating of beef' but there's no commercial TM. That's the 'end of'.

Ok, let's get away from the military aspect....

Apples.

Think 'Beefeater Gin' is Apple, as in the guys who make ipods.

You own a website 'apple.net', which tells of the nutritional advice, different types of apples, apple recipes etc, and it has Adsense ads on it. No computers or technology on there, whatsoever....

Should you hand over your domain to them?

**draggar** · 04-18-2008, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasdon11

Should you hand over your domain to them?

According to this ruling and what the Snowe Bill will mean, yes.

**aZooZa** · 04-18-2008, 06:18 PM

Hmmm. Apples and Beatles.

Banned: domain newbie · 04-18-2008, 07:07 PM

total crap, Injustice and stupidity ~ some newly cooked wanker was ruling the case who wanted to show off, plus why didnt they(uk comany) go for

http://www.beefeater.co.uk ??

**namestrands** · 04-19-2008, 04:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by domain newbie

total crap, Injustice and stupidity ~ some newly cooked wanker was ruling the case who wanted to show off, plus why didnt they(uk comany) go for

http://www.beefeater.co.uk ??

Dont forget Beefeaters.co.uk (a free email service)

Quote:

Originally Posted by NightLinks

I had a question similar to this case a few days ago. The question was if domainers risk of having their domain names taken away only because that person is a domainer.

I never thought that before, but after this I have to say it looks to be the case.

The panel on this case were prejudice, and really does warrant and investigation.

**Ian** · 04-19-2008, 05:27 AM

The moral of the story is that WIPO panelists can be bought end of story.

**jasdon11** · 04-19-2008, 08:27 AM

Anyway, Gordons is gin.

**DNQuest.com** · 04-21-2008, 09:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ian

The moral of the story is that WIPO panelists can be bought end of story.

I beleive that too, and to make matters worse, they only need to present what they want to present. In my case, I had a witness sign an affidavit aobut a phone call, it was completely ignored. Plus, the panelist did not research the website history as they always do, he either did not bother, or he did bother and did see my assertations were correct and chose not to include it in his ruling.

Arg, sorry, Monday morning crappiness...

**Acro** · 04-21-2008, 10:04 AM

I consider myself a lamb eater.

**RichInCollege** · 04-21-2008, 10:31 AM

Can we somehow get proper representation to the WIPO board? Invite one of them to the forum maybe? For some reason it seems like they look down on domaining as a big mob of typosquatters..

**domaingenius** · 04-21-2008, 11:08 AM

As you may have read in one of my earlier threads, I am objecting to a trademark application by a major corporation who think that they can walk all over me ,but they wont. They have now filed their arguments to the trademark registry and their main arguments against my opposition to their trademark application is that I am supposedly a domainer and deserve no rights whatsoever. THAT is pretty much what they are pleading and in return I am asking whwre in law it is written that a domainer is not entitled to the common law rights afforded to everyone. They say that the domain is "simply parked" and my argument is that that is my business of serving up advertisments on a good name (which I purchased long before they even thought of the name) and if it is good enough for Google ads then it is good enough for myself.

We really need to get together and fight such a case so that we can get it shown in law in the higher courts that we have rights and then that case can be shown at WIPO by all domainers. Anyone wants to assist on my case and use that then it is the perfect one.

DG

**cyberlaw** · 04-21-2008, 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by draggar

Bad ruling IMO but it sounds like the page was parked. I think the ruling would have gone the other way if the site wasn't parked and didn't have the "this domain is for sale" at the bottom.

This ruling should scream to the community that we should develop as opposed to park.

There is no question that someone who develops a name is going to have a much better shot of holding onto the name if challenged. I agree, if this had been developed and didn't display "this name for sale," the respondent almost certainly would have prevailed.

**jasdon11** · 04-22-2008, 05:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cyberlaw

There is no question that someone who develops a name is going to have a much better shot of holding onto the name if challenged. I agree, if this had been developed and didn't display "this name for sale," the respondent almost certainly would have prevailed.

I agree with the above - but it shouldn't be this way.

If you have a 'for sale' board outside your house, it shouldn't mean someone can take it from you.

The page wasn't displaying adverts for gin, therefore the owner wasn't trying to capitalise on the plaintiffs TM, therefore there was no bad faith.

**gingeman** · 04-22-2008, 07:44 AM

This is a truly ridiculous decision. Its an absolute no-brainer IMHO. No use in bad faith. Also, an 'enquire about this domain' link shouldn't hold so much weight imho- I reckon most people would sell their domain if somebody made an 'enquiry' whether there was an enquire about this name link or not... anyway, that's another arguement. This is a truly terrible decision, can you appeal against one like this at all?

**dominator** · 04-22-2008, 10:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jasdon11

Precisely - so by displaying meat related ads on the site, how could that be trying to capitalise on the TM for gin?

many stores and restaurant show Coca-Cola logos or beer brands

they sell the beverage and both the producer and the seller profit from this TM

Quote:

Originally Posted by namestrands

It is also a chain of restaurants and is also the name of the Yeoman Guards of the Tower of London.

exactly, the Gin producer is profiting from the name and image of the Yeoman Guards, do they get a commission (license fees) from James Burrough Ltd?

**LizzeyDripping** · 04-29-2008, 12:14 PM

Terribvle decision for sure - it seems almost like the panelists couldn't be bothered and simply took the complaint at face value.

BUT - a lot of chat here about how the steakhouse of the same name had a better claim - and look where the domain now points...

http://www.beefeaters.net

How odd! Why didn't Whitbread bring the case themselves...?!