Membership is FREE – with unlimited access to all features, tools, and discussions. Premium accounts get benefits like banner ads and newsletter exposure. ✅ Signature links are now free for all. 🚫 No AI-generated (LLM) posts allowed. Share your own thoughts and experience — accounts may be terminated for violations.

For Sale Fluor.ca CDRP Decision

Status
Not open for further replies.

Wzhxvy

Level 5
Legacy Gold Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
325
Reaction score
0
I didnt read the others but this one is slightly disturbing. They proved bad faith despite this site being "forwarded in error" to flour.com for 6 or 7 years. And then they claim they owner has a competitive business...highly doubt that...pointing to his competitive services may not have been the brightest move but this one smells.
 

msn

Level 8
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
36
This one is a 'slam dunk' in that it ticked all of the relevant boxes.

However, this filing really came about because the Melbourne IT people were clearly incompetent in how the registrant was approached. This entire matter could have been settled directly without resorting to an expensive challenge.

The engadget file however, is amazing in how badly it was handled!
 

Wzhxvy

Level 5
Legacy Gold Member
Joined
Jul 13, 2008
Messages
325
Reaction score
0
How is it a slam dunk that this guy and his small engineering company is a competitor to a multi billion dollar international company ? If its about ticking boxes, we dont need a panel, hire 3 chimps.
 

msn

Level 8
Legacy Exclusive Member
Joined
Aug 16, 2004
Messages
1,239
Reaction score
36
How is it a slam dunk that this guy and his small engineering company is a competitor to a multi billion dollar international company ? If its about ticking boxes, we dont need a panel, hire 3 chimps.

It is very simple: they consider the scope, not the scale, of competition.

Both companies were in the engineering sector. If the registrant was selling flour - yes, there is someone doing that online - then he would not have been a competitor. That fact that his firm might be smaller - or larger - played no role as soon as the fact was established that both are in the same field.

The positive aspect here is that this element was not decided on the basis of merely competing for the attention of web users, which an over-arching approach propagated by intellectually dishonest proponents, sometimes as panel members, of preventing domain parking or the potential development of alternative uses for domains other than by their own clients.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Who has viewed this thread (Total: 1) View details

Who has watched this thread (Total: 3) View details

The Rule #1

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

Premium Members

Upcoming events

Latest Listings

Our Mods' Businesses

*the exceptional businesses of our esteemed moderators

Top Bottom