Register

To become a member of ITProPortal Register here.

Already a member? Login here

Please register below. All we need is a valid email address and a password.

Please use a real email address as we need to email you to confirm your account.
Must be at least 6 characters long.

Benefits of joining ITProPortal:

  • Unlimited Access to Special Reports and White Papers
  • Exclusive offers and discounts
  • Free entry to all competitions
  • Access to beta sections of ITProPortal.com

Login to your account



Forgot your password?


Domain name dealer beats Maestro in dispute over maestro.co.uk

Domain name dealer beats Maestro in dispute over maestro.co.uk
  • Digg del.icio.us reddit Facebook

The dispute resolution service for .uk registry Nominet refused to overturn a previous ruling which let Mark Adams keep the domain. Adams is a Milton Keynes-based web designer and domain name dealer.

Maestro argued that Adams was responsible for a series of domain name registrations that were close to other people's brands, and that his registration of maestro.co.uk was abusive.

The appeal panel ruled that it did not prove the case that the registration was abusive, and that because maestro is a normal word with a dictionary definition it could not monopolise its use in domain names just because it also happened to be one of its brands.

Maestro argued that "in light of the evidence submitted of registrations by the Respondent of domain names including well known trade marks of third parties, the [original case's] Expert was wrong … and he should have considered the complaint in the overall context of a Respondent who has a record of registering domain names which include third party trade marks," it said in its submission.

"All of the domain names listed in the complaint are either identical to or incorporate famous third party trade marks in which the Respondent has no legitimate rights and therefore constitute a pattern of registrations," argued Maestro.

Maestro said that the Expert in the original hearing had misconstrued the rules governing his decision. "The Expert clearly had in mind that it was necessary or at least of relevance that there was no evidence of 'findings' of abusive registrations. This in not the correct test to be applied under the Policy, and lead to the Expert incorrectly dismissing this ground of complaint.

Team Outlaw

Posted by Team Outlaw on 14 Jan. 2008

This article was contributed by OUT-LAW.COM, part of international law firm Pinsent Masons. See http://www.out-law.com for further details.

Tags: Card Transactions, Company reputation, copyright