DRS 27142

I don't think that it was found to be viewed as an acquisition, in the findings section:

6.21 Does renewal of a domain name fall within the meaning of the words "registration or
acquisition"? It is tolerably clear that a renewal is not registration. So can it constitute
acquisition? Giving those words their ordinary English meaning, a person cannot acquire
something he already has. Acquisition must mean obtaining something he does not already
have.
 
Last edited:
@Cav is right. See paragraph 6.23 (my bold):

In this case, not only had the Domain Name expired on 18 September without the Respondent taking any action, it had also then been suspended on 19 October. It was only after that, and when he received the Complaint, that the Respondent renewed his registration on 22 October. While at that date he was still within the 90 day period when a renewal is permitted, can it be said that during that period he was already in possession of the Domain Name, such that the renewal cannot be said to have constituted "acquisition"? Probably not, i.e. renewal of an expired domain name probably constitutes "acquisition".

This has huge implications for future DRS cases because it shifts the acquisition date of every single .uk domain that has ever been renewed after expiry.

The expert must surely have realised that he was opening a can of worms by saying this, so I wonder whether he ran it past Nominet first, or just decided to go off-piste.
 
Thanks for that clarification @Jeff. Yes, it looks as though that assertion has indeed been made.
 
@Cav is right. See paragraph 6.23 (my bold):

In this case, not only had the Domain Name expired on 18 September without the Respondent taking any action, it had also then been suspended on 19 October. It was only after that, and when he received the Complaint, that the Respondent renewed his registration on 22 October. While at that date he was still within the 90 day period when a renewal is permitted, can it be said that during that period he was already in possession of the Domain Name, such that the renewal cannot be said to have constituted "acquisition"? Probably not, i.e. renewal of an expired domain name probably constitutes "acquisition".

This has huge implications for future DRS cases because it shifts the acquisition date of every single .uk domain that has ever been renewed after expiry.

The expert must surely have realised that he was opening a can of worms by saying this, so I wonder whether he ran it past Nominet first, or just decided to go off-piste.

Yes, the expert goes on to say "Had the Complainant filed a well argued Reply, or indeed any Reply, its case on abusive registration may well have succeeded."

But I think there is another relevant point to consider in this particular case: the Respondent's attempt to sell the name to the Complainant after a DRS was filed and the name renewed:

"Indeed, before filing his Response, the Respondent proactively contacted the Complainant trying to sell the recently renewed (or acquired) Domain Name. That almost certainly took unfair advantage of the Complainant's rights, particularly in circumstances where the Respondent knew that, owing to the very 90 day grace period on which he relies, the Complainant was itself blocked from registering the Domain Name, despite
the fact that it had already expired."

The idea that you "acquire" a name by renewing it during the 90 day post-expiry grace period, however, is obvious nonsense.
 
It is an interesting one, as if it was not his during that period... and clearly existed... who legally had it? Who was it aquired from...

Was it Nominet? If so, should they be responding for that period of time as well?! What if they get a few strikes... do they have to stop handling .uk renewals?!

As above, clearly a nonsense...

Also,

  1. The Complainant says that the position is exacerbated by the fact that its current domain name is quickhost.uk which is "nearly identical" to the Domain Name. Accordingly "Customers seeking my services could easily be misdirected to the wrong website or be led to believe that the [Domain Name] is associated with or owned by my company".

To me that is a Nominet fail, for not linking the .co.uk / .uk for perpetuity. Also QuickHostUK perhaps should have got QuickHostUK.co.uk or .uk to avoid people getting the name wrong?

QuickHostUK IMHO should have bought the name back in 2020 for the apparently agreed price and not wasted peoples time and money IMHO.
 
.uk guy DRS's a co.uk? It's like the owner of a Ferrari complaining about someone's 3 wheeled van :ROFLMAO:

I thought when a DRS came in, the name was locked so that no changes could be made anyway.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rob
What a silly waste of £750
 
.uk guy DRS's a co.uk? It's like the owner of a Ferrari complaining about someone's 3 wheeled van :ROFLMAO:

I thought when a DRS came in, the name was locked so that no changes could be made anyway.
That is what happened to me for 4 months. I couldnt change the nameservers, transfer it anywhere etc so was just a dead domain while it got sorted.
 
.uk guy DRS's a co.uk? It's like the owner of a Ferrari complaining about someone's 3 wheeled van :ROFLMAO:

I thought when a DRS came in, the name was locked so that no changes could be made anyway.

Looks like name was renewed after initial complaint filed but before DRS entered into.
 
Looks like name was renewed after initial complaint filed but before DRS entered into.
I didn't think even that was allowed, thought it was a total lockdown but obviously I wasn't correct.

On the issue, I think it would have been easy for Garth to show a history of last minute renewals. I don't think even if the guy had replied and progressed this argument it would have gotten far.

Lots of us leave things until a week or so before renewing them. It's amazing how fast these names get suspended etc when you have 500 odd of them.
 
Back
Top