PDA

View Full Version : Toth -v- Emirates or Courts -v- Nominet?



aZooZa
22-02-12, 02:32 PM
Some of you may be familiar with this ongoing dispute over the domain name emirates.co.uk.

Here's some background:

http://www.mwe.com/info/news/euroip1111.pdf#page=6

aZooZa
22-02-12, 03:53 PM
Very important for Nominet and the DRS process. They won't want to lose this one.

GreyWing
22-02-12, 04:49 PM
Too many strange decisions going through Nom towers these days, external judicial scrutiny will remind them they ain't above the law. Standby for the summary DRS getting reviewed shortly after if they lose this one, that thing is dodgy as hell.

secname
22-02-12, 04:55 PM
Too many strange decisions going through Nom towers these days, external judicial scrutiny will remind them they ain't above the law. Standby for the summary DRS getting reviewed shortly after if they lose this one, that thing is dodgy as hell.

couldnt agree more...

Edwin
23-02-12, 12:41 AM
There should always be a way to overturn a DRS (or a UDRP if we're talking about .com domains). That way shouldn't necessarily be easy or cheap, but it needs to exist - after all for other types of legal dispute there is a clear escalation process that goes "up and up" until it hits the supreme court or equivalent, so why not for domains?

aZooZa
23-02-12, 04:59 AM
An interesting snippet from the initial DRS decision (Nominet ref: D00008634) - this is part of MT's response:



In contrast, the emirates.com.au website – where the Complainant’s auDRP complaint failed – has a disclaimer, and also appears to have adverts that go direct to the Complainant’s site, generating revenue for the registrant. Despite this, the use of the emirates.com.au domain was held to be in good faith.


Here's that auDRP: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2008/dau2008-0004.html

A snippet:



The Respondent points out that a website directed at Australians providing information about “the Emirates” can hardly avoid including information about traveling there and denies that air travel is the focal feature of the website. The Respondent admits that there is advertising on the website – Ads by Google the content of which the Respondent claims is controlled by Google’s AdSense and many, if not most, of which are in fact for the Complainant’s own services.


To wit: http://www.emirates.com.au/

So the Aussie case was lost by Emirates. The current one will be a very close call I think.

Pred
23-02-12, 09:55 PM
Is that an Alien I see before me? lol
will email you in next day or so mate about next site want building


onto Michael
wish him the very best of British
really rooting for him

rob
07-03-12, 06:35 PM
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/517.html

Toth lost.

As thought, not a case about infringement or the like but todo with if the courts can re-hear a DRS. 'de novo' is the key phrase.

Nominet were an 'intervener' so it was Toth & Emirates & Nominet.

atlas
07-03-12, 06:47 PM
Looks like a reasonable decision to me. If I understand correctly, the decision says once there has been a DRS, you can't start all over in court. Makes sense, otherwise the DRS would just become a warmup round for the real battle.

aZooZa
08-03-12, 02:42 AM
Perhaps it's not all over yet:



2. Emirates applied to strike out the claim on various bases and the matter came before HH Judge Birss QC on 13th June 2011. He concentrated on the declarations in relation to abusive registration and the allegedly improper decision. He declined to strike out the first of those two claims, but struck out the second. Emirates appealed from the first of those two decisions, and Mr Toth cross-appealed on the second.
This judgment deals only with the first of those appeals. It was agreed that debate on the second could usefully await my decision on this part of the appeal.

Finally:



66. It follows that I allow this appeal on the question of whether the court can grant the declaration sought. I find it cannot, and that the claim for the declaration falls to be struck out. This probably establishes the need to move on to consider the cross-appeal, and I shall do so on or after the handing down of this decision.

aZooZa
25-03-12, 04:13 AM
'El Reg' has an article - the comments are interesting also...

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/03/22/nominet_rules_mean_abusive_domain_name_registratio ns_finding_cannot_be_reheard_says_high_court/

GreyWing
25-03-12, 06:06 AM
Anthony made a good point over on acorn.... There was a previous case with that Cohen fella wasn't there that said a user had to go through Nominet not the courts, now the courts are saying that it is one or the other. You have to choose the method of adjudication before you start, which it said wasn't allowed.

rob
25-03-12, 10:09 AM
Itunes, the bloke is a prat imho.

Thread tile change perhaps as its todo with taking legal action now rather than the domain.

Its set for an appeal but its big bucks to do that. Toth will have spent 6 figs to get this far so cant see him going further.

What is of concern to me, is if nom change the DRS terms, they are going by this effectively law.

Who has democratic or independent input to nominet policy? No one.

Distinct lack of interest or perhaps understanding out there on this.

aZooZa
25-03-12, 11:10 AM
Thread title changed. Who's Itunes Rob?

rob
25-03-12, 11:22 AM
Itunes.co.uk wanted judicial review.

The bloke is now a reporter for channel 4. There is some good stuff on his traffic stats claims for his early stuff. He featured on a bbc documentary as well.

aZooZa
25-03-12, 12:29 PM
Cheers Rob - will browse that one at leisure tonight. Sean makes some good comments over at Acorn.

invincible
12-06-12, 04:54 AM
The emirates.co.uk domain name was transferred to Emirates (the airline) on 11th May 2012. Did the cross-appeal (second) part of the judgement ever get published?

Ty
14-06-12, 08:39 AM
I saw this report of the Court decision re the judgement against Michael.

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/march1/nominet-rules-prevent-findings-of-abusive-domain-name-registrations-being-re-heard-in-court-high-court-rules/

Regards

Ty

invincible
14-06-12, 08:46 AM
I saw this report of the Court decision re the judgement against Michael.

http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2012/march1/nominet-rules-prevent-findings-of-abusive-domain-name-registrations-being-re-heard-in-court-high-court-rules/

Regards

Ty

Thanks. I'm not sure this relates to the second part (the cross-appeal) though because that was due to be looked at subsequently. The final paragraph in the first judgement read:

"It follows that I allow this appeal on the question of whether the court can grant the declaration sought. I find it cannot, and that the claim for the declaration falls to be struck out. This probably establishes the need to move on to consider the cross-appeal, and I shall do so on or after the handing down of this decision." Taken from here at AD (http://www.acorndomains.co.uk/domain-name-disputes/99422-toth-v-emirates-3.html#post387099).