Enjoy unlimited access to all forum features for FREE! Optional upgrade available for extra perks.
Domain summit 2024

closed business.in, web.in ...

This thread has been closed by the original author or DNF staff member.
Status
Not open for further replies.

domain newbie

Level 9
Legacy Gold Member
Joined
Mar 13, 2005
Messages
2,642
Reaction score
1
Feedback: 23 / 0 / 0
nice names... gives me a rush, are they frozen or no??
 
Domain summit 2024

godolphin

DNF Member
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Dec 31, 2005
Messages
769
Reaction score
4
Feedback: 46 / 0 / 0
Share your experience of losing some names...
 

PRED

Level 11
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
9,128
Reaction score
175
Feedback: 245 / 0 / 0
i didnt know any one person on planet owned a list of the BEST generics in one extension like that :?:

do u still own?

were some took?

how did u get all?

i read whole thread and still confused :eek:

(nb. thread from 2005 for anyone chancing on this)
 

Alan Glennon

Level 5
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
452
Reaction score
5
Feedback: 28 / 0 / 0
Some of those names have been lost, but Christoph still has a pile of powerful .in remaining.
 

PRED

Level 11
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
9,128
Reaction score
175
Feedback: 245 / 0 / 0
Some of those names have been lost, but Christoph still has a pile of powerful .in remaining.

I'm pleased for him.
how were they 'lost'?
 

Alan Glennon

Level 5
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
452
Reaction score
5
Feedback: 28 / 0 / 0
web.in and business.in were lost in INDRPs. It's interesting to me that business.in was not forfeited to the complainant, but rather went to non-registrable status (at least, that's what I think happened).

Read the case here (pdf):
http://www.inregistry.in/policies/dispute_resolution/dispute_decisions/business.pdf
--web.in--- case can be found here:
http://www.inregistry.in/policies/dispute_resolution/dispute_decisions/

I'm pleased for him.
how were they 'lost'?

Another note of interest from the INDRPs. The respondent (who never responded to the complaint) against runescape.in was ordered to pay 30,000 rupees legal costs to the complainant.
 
Last edited:

PRED

Level 11
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
9,128
Reaction score
175
Feedback: 245 / 0 / 0
thanks Jag :cool:
 

Domainate.com

Selling Domains
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2006
Messages
2,054
Reaction score
12
Feedback: 108 / 0 / 0
web.in and business.in were lost in INDRPs. It's interesting to me that business.in was not forfeited to the complainant, but rather went to non-registrable status (at least, that's what I think happened).

Read the case here (pdf):
http://www.inregistry.in/policies/dispute_resolution/dispute_decisions/business.pdf
--web.in--- case can be found here:
http://www.inregistry.in/policies/dispute_resolution/dispute_decisions/



Another note of interest from the INDRPs. The respondent (who never responded to the complaint) against runescape.in was ordered to pay 30,000 rupees legal costs to the complainant.

Interesting how according to that business.in decision, everyone who buys domains with the intent to sell them is a squatter. They need to get with the times. It was crap decisions like that that caused me to put a blog up on poker.in regarding poker in India before I ended up selling, because then they can't say I had no intent to use the name. He would have lost some parking revenues, but better than losing a 5-6 figure name.
 

Alan Glennon

Level 5
Legacy Platinum Member
Joined
Jun 5, 2006
Messages
452
Reaction score
5
Feedback: 28 / 0 / 0
To me, this is the most disturbing INDRP decision (for ndtv.co.in) --- no evidence of bad faith (in fact, the finding is that the registrant showed no intention to deceive the internet users of the Complainant) and that the domain is being used for an area of marketing different than the complainant's, but they still take the name anyway! Want to know what American domaining will be like if the Snowe Bill passes?

"It is held that:
- Both the element of bad faith registration and bad faith use are not established. The Respondent deals with other marketing area rather than that of Complainant.

- The Respondent has no relationship or connection with the business of
New Delhi Television Limited.

- Though the Respondent has no malafide intention to deceive the
internet users of Complainant, the misrepresentation is made in the
course of trade to unwary Internet users.

- There in no evidence that the Respondent has purchased the domain
on account of bad faith.

- By relying on judgement of Supreme Court of India in Satyam
Infoway Ltd. vs. Sifynet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. reported in AIR 2004 SC
3540 and in accordance with the paragraph 10 of the IN Domain
Name Dispute Resolution Policy the domain name www.ndtv.co.in of
Respondent be surrendered to the Complainant."

Source (pdf doc): http://www.registry.in/policies/dispute_resolution/dispute_decisions/ndtv.pdf
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

The Rule #1

Do not insult any other member. Be polite and do business. Thank you!

Sedo - it.com Premiums

IT.com

Premium Members

AucDom
UKBackorder
Be a Squirrel
MariaBuy

New Threads

Our Mods' Businesses

Free QR Code Generator by MerchArts
UrlPick.com

*the exceptional businesses of our esteemed moderators

Top Bottom