DRS D00028377

[GreyWing]

This one involved my complaint. I can't say too much about it other that I'm shocked. The expert has set out on his own fishing trips try and undo what he see's an injustice in 2023 and got just about all of his factual evidence wrong.

Appeal should be in next week

@Ree I need your help toning down my appeal mate

 

[Jeff]

This one involved my complaint. I can't say too much about it other that I'm shocked. The expert has set out on his own fishing trips try and undo what he see's an injustice in 2023 and got just about all of his factual evidence wrong.

Appeal should be in next week

@Ree I need your help toning down my appeal mate

No disrespect, but the consensus in 2023 was that your previous DRS was a clever wheeze, but it exposed a loophole that needed to be closed. It was discussed on Acorn before such conversations were banned:

https://www.acorndomains.co.uk/threads/rdap-result-discrepancy.176695/post-661166

Out of interest, since the .uk was under the the same ownership as the .co.uk, why didn't you DRS the pair at the same time?

 

[Ree]

This one involved my complaint. I can't say too much about it other that I'm shocked. The expert has set out on his own fishing trips try and undo what he see's an injustice in 2023 and got just about all of his factual evidence wrong.

Appeal should be in next week

@Ree I need your help toning down my appeal mate

DM sent Graeme.

 

[GreyWing]

None taken Jeff, genuinely none taken. It was a weird set of circumstances that came together that were unlikely to ever happen on any other name.

For example, there were emails from regulators and the Financial Ombudsman attaching penalties to QuickLoans.co.uk because they thought we were the same brand. QuickQuid were offline, so people were complaining about us for things QuickQuid did, and if we didn't respond to each one, then you risk getting a fine of about £650-£750 from the Financial Ombudsman. Having a guess, I'd say between 600-800 standard complaints from the Ombudsman between 19-23. There were emails from the Financial Ombudsman apologising for getting it wrong. Letters from the insolvency agency most days asking for breathing space for QQ customers. The quality of the evidence of confusion was pretty decent and when it comes from regulators. Only the Independent expert who handled it ever really saw it, about from a couple of people this end.

I'd have to dig out the old DRS but I think from memory I said something along the lines that them being offline were hurting our reputation. Customers who were looking for them were finding us, customers looking for us were finding the website offline and it was hurting business. Similar with our customers who wanted to make complaints couldn't. It was along those lines.

I know some believe I said Quick Loans sound same as Quick Quid, give me the name - but it really wasn't like that, and that wouldn't have worked. The complaint was genuine, all of the facts in it were genuine. Had the other side responded, depending on what they said, it would have been difficult to get through no doubt about it. But we were suffering negative effects of the confusion, and that's what the rules allowed. Right now Nominet are sticking to every single hard rule regarding making it as hard as they can for me to appeal in a coherent way, so sticking to rules works both ways. If the rules say it, then use it.

Out of interest, since the .uk was under the the same ownership as the .co.uk, why didn't you DRS the pair at the same time?

I thought they were the same registrants too. I was told in 2023 that it was owned by a different registrant. I paid for the GoDaddy team to connect with them, the £70 thing. They said do I want to reach out to the .uk owner at the same time - I said is it the same Owner/Registrant, they said no and that I would have to pay 2x £70 - so I just left it. One was with GoDaddy, the other with 123-reg.

That's why it was never on the original DRS, I was told it was a different entity - and it was. When I DRS'd it this time, they transferred it from one Registrant to another - GoDaddy's privacy shield thing and then started the DRS. I checked before I started this and it said the Registrant Data Quality thing had been validated. If it was validated, that means it couldn't have been a company dissolved almost 3 years ago. I guess that validation thing on the Nom registry is just BS then.

That's why the expert is wrong, he is assuming without fact that I knew who the Registrant was - I didn't - how could I have? Plus it wasn't the same Registrant that initially registered it 2014, he's wrong on that too. I now believe that to be Enova International who then at some point must have transferred it to the Respondent at some unknown point later in time.

But even then, it doesn't matter. The Registration date is a UDRP thing, I'm not an expert on it but from what I know, in UDRP the registration and the usage have to abuse someone rights, in DRS, the abuse needs only to happen at some point. The chap is a UDRP expert, let's just say I think he's got very confused between the rules.

The rights thing is baffling, we've been trading on that name for almost 3 years and don't have rights? He then says that we need to show goodwill to get rights, and we didn't show. That's not the DRS standard. That's just weird and in our opinion should be relatively easy to be overturned.

He also says that our sole complaint was 5.1.6, when we listed abuse under 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 - so even by his own admission, he hasn't read our complaint, or hasn't considered those points. That's an appealable error on it's own, never mind the rest of his errors and assumptions.

I didn't enter the same evidence in this as I did in 2023. I think the Expert here believes I did and that is all I had in 2023, it wasn't. 2023's DRS had evidence of confliction between QuickLoans.co.uk v QuickQuid.co.uk. In this, I don't have evidence of confusion between QuickLoans.co.uk v QuickQuid.uk - that's why I never submitted it here.The confusion here is between QuickQuid.co.uk and QuickQuid.uk. Completely different circumstances. I think that's why he's got a bee in his bonnet, he thinks this evidence won the 2023 DRS - it didn't.

At some point in this, the Expert ceased being an expert and started to be an advocate for the Respondent. He's invented theories and assumptions out of nowhere and we never got the chance to answer them back. He thinks the business went into administration in 2022, fecking Google stopped working has it ole chap? He's findings have factual errors all over then place. The expert is trying to settle the score for what happened 3 years ago. He's publicly accused me of misleading the Experts, and must have done so knowingly. That needs to be addressed.

I think this is worse than the manage.co.uk summary decision, which was successfully overturned. At least the expert didn't have motivations from outside the DRS, she just got things innocently wrong. This guy, well.

I'm limited to 1000 word appeal now to show why he was wrong. Usually a Complainant gets 2000 words or something to respond to these accusations, but because the expert is acting like the respondent - I get nothing other than the appeal. How do I quote him and explain why he was wrong factually and procedurally in 1000 words or less? Nominet won't budge.

This appeal reads like CeeFax from the 80's. It feels like trying to get 1kb of savings whilst programming a Sinclair Spectrum by deleting a word here and there where I can.

The funniest thing is, I spoke to Enova.com back in 2012 about them leasing QuickLoans.co.uk - they contacted me asking about it, they wanted to buy it rather than lease it. They raised the possibility of DRS'ing me if I didn't sell. I can't believe I missed that before, I vaguely remember them trying to buy it and we spoke on the phone, but I missed submitting that in the 2023 DRS.

Cheeky feckers

Anyway, the question is now. Even if the appeal experts say this chap was wrong - can a name be an abusive registration when the registrant has been dissolved? If not, Nominet have knowingly took all this money, the DRS and the appeal fee when I never had a chance of winning.

Interesting to see where this goes.

 

[Marek]

With the very small cash value of the domain, and the inability for anyone else to use it, I'm not sure why the DRS process (and then an expensive appeal) is in play here.

This isn't the .co.uk, nobody else wants it, it's bordering on worthless. It doesn't have a link profile or a history and theres no way at all anyone other than you can build a site on it. As you could sidestep nominet entirely and go the FCA complaint route the second someone tried to add your brand name to their credit license.

I don't think it's a good use of £3000+vat appealing a decision over a dropping domain, that nobody wanted. Delete this thread and buy it for £10-200 after it drops...

 

[Jeff]

Delete this thread and buy it for £10-200 after it drops...

Well, he should have been able to pick it up for that, but now he's announced that he's willing to pay £3k + VAT, that's what he's likely to end up paying. Whoever catches it will just sit on it until he coughs up.

Having said that, I still think this is a better approach than the appeal.

Not much point deleting the thread because of the two leading catchers, one of them owns the forum and the other is a member who I'm sure looks in regularly. They both know that there's a buyer willing to pay £3k for this domain.

 

[GreyWing]

I don't think it's a good use of £3000+vat appealing a decision over a dropping domain, that nobody wanted. Delete this thread and buy it for £10-200 after it drops...

Morning Marek

You are absolutely right though about the meaninglessness of the name, and it's 100% not worth it financially, it makes no sense for me to appeal. I can't argue with any of what you have said. Unfortunately it's gone into other things now because of what he has wrote.

In the appeal, I'm now asking them to delete it instead of transferring it if they agree the Expert has made a mistake. I'd like them to look into it on a point of principle. This guy has gotten his facts wrong, doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, said publicly that I have misled them and I'd like the chance to respond.

I'm fine with them saying I weaponised the DRS, I can understand anyone that looks at what is written and come to that conclusion, but I think this chap is different. I think he's trying to settle the score for the first DRS, and if that's the case and that is how the DRS Expert's feel more widely then it needs addressing now over a worthless name rather than some of my others that are more valuable.

 

[GreyWing]

Well, he should have been able to pick it up for that, but now he's announced that he's willing to pay £3k + VAT, that's what he's likely to end up paying. Whoever catches it will just sit on it until he coughs up.

Haha not exactly Jeff, what I'm prepared to pay £3.6k for is the appeals panel taking a look at it and saying he's wrong on the points I'm raising in the appeal. In my opinion, he's also stopped being an independent expert and crossed over all lines into advocacy. I've never seen that before to this extent and I'd like them to take a look at his conduct. The thing is, if an Expert comes up with his own theories, he has to in my opinion give the side a chance to respond. I think this was raised successfully in a previous DRS Appeal by Jim and Lee on the Pheonix name.

 

[Hook]

I've got a dispute to handle soon with a dropped domain that I turned into a site... issue with DRS is the uncertainty - why I usually sell the domain in mediation and get it over with.

I was under the impression that DRS cases do not set precedents, and do not all have to follow the same outcome with similar facts? So even if you win the dispute, will it make such a different?

 

[GreyWing]

issue with DRS is the uncertainty

In all honesty I think it's the same with most Court's. My mate was in the County Court's a while back, I'd never seen anything like it. Cash receipts with false details were fine with the judge.

I was under the impression that DRS cases do not set precedents, and do not all have to follow the same outcome with similar facts? So even if you win the dispute, will it make such a different?

That is true, I believe what they say is that they take previous decisions into account. You are right though, no precedent cases in DRS. It's not appealable grounds, so this isn't my appeal, but I think what sets this out as being unique and wrong is that I never got any chance to reply. I think the DRS process is flawed in this. The Expert said I misled them, that needs to be explained.

My grounds for the appeal are this, I think it sinks or swims on these points. I will use the other 800 words to explain errors etc, but essentially, this is what the appeal will rest on.

Rights

• Expert erred by setting higher Rights bar than that of DRS policy, inconsistent with Established DRS standard.
• Expert dismissed for no/limited evidence of Goodwill, the standard for rights is rights, goodwill is just one aspect of rights. Ignored undisputed evidence submitted.
• Peculiar to have been granted rights in DRS25512, added almost 3 years of undisputed trading history (FCA Register Impeccable Source, shows date added to permissions) on exact domain name and now have no rights.
• If the FCA were to visit that site submitted into evidence, they would prosecute us for trading without permission if I didn’t have permission. It’s content according to the FSMA 2000, is trading.

Abusive Registration

• Expert states: “The sole argument advanced by the Complainant is that it sees no reason for the Respondent to hold the Domain Name when it has no genuine commercial or regulated use for the Domain Name”
• With the word “sole” the expert is stating he has ignored/not seen grounds pleaded on 5.1.2 and 5.13.
• Expert not required to address every point, but above statement says he hasn’t considered our pleadings.

 

[Jeff]

In the appeal, I'm now asking them to delete it instead of transferring it if they agree the Expert has made a mistake. I'd like them to look into it on a point of principle. This guy has gotten his facts wrong, doesn't have a clue what he's talking about, said publicly that I have misled them and I'd like the chance to respond.

what I'm prepared to pay £3.6k for is the appeals panel taking a look at it and saying he's wrong on the points I'm raising in the appeal.

Well in that case I have a business proposition for you:

1. I post something rude/unkind/wrong about you (take your pick).
2. You give me £3600.
3. I admit that I was wrong, apologise and retract, but keep the £3600.

And because I'm such a generous guy, I'm willing to repeat the exercise as often as you like...

Joking aside, if your only motivation for pursuing this is a belief that some or all of paragraph 7 of the latest DRS decision is defamatory, then ask Nominet to remove the offending parts under threat of legal action. The paragraph is optional, so they could delete the whole lot without it affecting the outcome.

 

[DJ]

Often, people’s principles can make it appear from the outside that irrational decisions are being made. The good or bad thing about principles is that we all have them, and I imagine — and somewhat hope — that we try to stick to them where we can, even if the cost or the advice given suggests we do otherwise, because without principles and beliefs we may as well all just be a bunch of sheep.

 

[DJ]

I've got a dispute to handle soon with a dropped domain that I turned into a site... issue with DRS is the uncertainty - why I usually sell the domain in mediation and get it over with.

I was under the impression that DRS cases do not set precedents, and do not all have to follow the same outcome with similar facts? So even if you win the dispute, will it make such a different?

Better to agree to a price, that you are happy with, during mediation if possible, as the case then does not appear in the public domain and cannot be used against you going forward. That being said, I would always make that decision based on the evidence they have put forward and defend it accordingly. The stronger your defence, the greater chance you have at selling it during mediation.

 

[Marek]

Often, people’s principles can make it appear from the outside that irrational decisions are being made. The good or bad thing about principles is that we all have them, and I imagine — and somewhat hope — that we try to stick to them where we can, even if the cost or the advice given suggests we do otherwise, because without principles and beliefs we may as well all just be a bunch of sheep.

But like Jeff jokes about above, you're giving the cash to the very organisation you're complaining about.

I'd rather hire 18 childrens party clowns for £200 each and have them hand out leaflets outside noms office

 

[Marek]

No disrespect, but the consensus in 2023 was that your previous DRS was a clever wheeze,

Haha yeah, it was 100% a quality one that though, even as a competitor, fair play he won there

What should he have done, played fair and let it drop and get his equal chance to catch it on his tag? Then look on in amazement as the domain flies off to a Bulgarian village with a population of 3, or auctioned on UKBA?

 

[Jeff]

Appeal should be in next week

So have you submitted it? I'm keen to get started on our new JV...

 

[GreyWing]

So have you submitted it? I'm keen to get started on our new JV...

Sorry mate, been really busy the last few days. The deadline was today and I haven't had time to do it yet, thanks to those sending help and ideas for the appeal.

I've filed a notice to appeal today, it essentially gives me another 2 weeks to file it. I'm going to try and do it this week though.

 

[Jeff]

Sorry mate, been really busy the last few days. The deadline was today and I haven't had time to do it yet, thanks to those sending help and ideas for the appeal.

I've filed a notice to appeal today, it essentially gives me another 2 weeks to file it. I'm going to try and do it this week though.

Having bought yourself an extra fortnight I expect you're still ruminating on this, so before I hop on the plane to the summit I thought I'd make one last attempt to save you from yourself.

The first thing to say is that if you're being advised behind the scenes to proceed with this appeal you need ask whether those giving that advice have their own axe to grind with Nominet.

Comparing this case to some other recent DRS decisions, I think an appeal is very unlikely to succeed for several reasons.

Firstly, as things stand you haven't even cleared the "rights" hurdle. You suggest in your posts above that this is because the expert has applied a higher standard than the DRS Policy dictates, and that you've been singled out for special treatment. I agree that the expert has applied a higher standard than the expert did in 2023, but the standard applied this time is consistent with both the Experts' Overview and other recent failed DRS summary decisions - such as D00028468 and D00028371. The latter goes into detail about what experts expect to see these days. You haven't been singled out.

Secondly, you haven't specified what evidence of rights you submitted this time, but it was obviously deemed insufficient. Did you, for example, include evidence that you added QuickQuid.co.uk to your FCA authorisation in May 2023? Whether you included this or not, you're now stuck with the evidence you submitted with the original complaint because the appeal panel won't allow new evidence "unless they believe that it is in the interests of justice to do so" (DRS Policy Section 20.8). In the recent D00028147 appeal the panel declined to allow new evidence on the grounds that it "could have been submitted with the Complaint at first instance". If you try to submit new evidence I think you'll get exactly the same answer.

Thirdly, even if you manage to clear the rights hurdle at the second attempt by persuading the appeal panel to allow new evidence, or that the evidence you've already submitted was sufficient, you're then faced with the "abusive registration" hurdle. I think this hurdle is insurmountable for the simple reason that neither the original registration nor the subsequent use of the domain have been remotely abusive. Nothing you say in any appeal can alter this.

The domain was registered in October 2014, so notwithstanding the different registrar, it must have been the quickquid.co.uk owner exercising their right of first refusal. Since it was Nominet who granted those rights and Nominet who then spent five years encouraging .co.uk owners to exercise them, there's no way that Nominet is going to find the original registration to have been abusive. If that were not enough, the domain was registered 7½ months before your company Quick Loans Ltd (the complainant in this case) even existed, and 8½ years before Quick Loans Ltd acquired quickquid.co.uk.

As for use, there hasn't been any. There are 13 captures on the Wayback Machine and all I can see are a couple of GoDaddy landers. If the domain hasn't been used at all, it can't have been used abusively.

The bottom line is that the expert in this case may have made mistakes in getting there, but the decision he reached is the correct one. It was the expert in 2023 who got it wrong.

So my advice is forget the appeal and let the domain drop. Try to catch it yourself, and if you don't manage to do so, then bid for it in the aftermarket. If you can't pick it up for a sensible price (a lot less than £3600) put the new owner on notice that any use of the domain in the loan industry will trigger an immediate complaint to the FCA and/or a new DRS.

Such a DRS would cost a lot less than this appeal and stand a much greater chance of success.

 

[GreyWing]

Fair points Jeff, I appreciate the feedback. I have until a week on Monday, I plan to do it this week. Been so busy as having some work done in the house and not going great.

To address a few of your points.

The "Rights" part is just black and white, it's clear that I'm trading on the domain name. Yes I did include a screenshot of the FCA website and a screenshot of the live website. In the two examples you provided, the Company name hasn't been enough for rights for a long time, if ever. Although Nominet was going to allow it at one point when the first release mechanism of .uk was proposed - it would have been enough to get you into the auction phase against the .co.uk owner. I think those two examples are slightly different as neither uses the direct .co.uk domain name.

I do agree that I didn't show enough evidence of goodwill for the purposes of 5.1.6. However, my pleadings said that in the event 5.1.6 doesn't apply, then the expert should address 5.1.1.2 and 5.1.1.3 (although I got the number wrong, I got the pleading in words right). The Expert said that he considered my argument to be "solely" 5.1.6, basically he's stating that he hasn't even addressed 5.1.1.2 and 5.1.1.2 - this is an appealable error.

In saying that the 2014 date is king, the expert is also using UDRP rules, not Nomient DRS rules. Also the Expert has proposed these defences, they weren't put by the respondent and I didn't have chance to respond, again appealable.

The domain was registered in October 2014, so notwithstanding the different registrar, it must have been the quickquid.co.uk owner exercising their right of first refusal. Since it was Nominet who granted those rights and Nominet who then spent five years encouraging .co.uk owners to exercise them, there's no way that Nominet is going to find the original registration to have been abusive. If that were not enough, the domain was registered 7½ months before your company Quick Loans Ltd (the complainant in this case) even existed, and 8½ years before Quick Loans Ltd acquired quickquid.co.uk.

One of the arguments is that the Expert is wrong, CashEuroNetUK LLC cannot possibly be the respondent, it's dissolved - since at least early 2025. Bona Vacantia is the respondent, and when a domain name or trademark enters Bona Vacantia, it is stripped of all goodwill. If it turns out that a name of a dissolved company in Bona Vacantia can't be DRS'd, well then they will have taken £4,000 off me for something I could never have won - that's a whole other issue.

In most though, the future of the name is irrelevant, The Expert says that I misled them on this and the other DRS. I would like the Appeal Expert's to say how and that I be given a chance to respond. The Expert hasn't even seen my pleadings or evidence for the previous DRS, he decided to quote another Expert in a later DRS, who also hasn't seen my pleadings. I'd like to know where he got his prejudice ideas from because if the DRS expert's have an issue with me, it needs to be sorted on this name that is essentially worthless rather than a name that is more valuable.

I do understand the DRS was controversial and whatever views people have on it is fine, but to say I misled them if a step too far from this chap.

I don't think a complainant has ever appealed a summery decision before so it's going to be interesting how they handle this.

 

[Ree]

Jeff, I appreciate the efforts to allow incompetence and bad judgment to go unchecked; however, some of your practical advice is decent. But I'd suggest that before advising someone to abandon an appeal, it's worth engaging with the actual grounds rather than the grounds you've assumed.

You've made no mention of the fact that the expert applied the UDRP bad faith test, requiring abusive intent at the point of registration, when the DRS Policy explicitly uses the word "OR," meaning subsequent conduct is sufficient. That isn't a matter of interpretation; it's on the face of the policy. A UDRP specialist applying UDRP rules to a DRS case is a fundamental legal error, and it infected the entire abusive registration analysis.

You've also not addressed the procedural point, which is arguably the most serious. The expert imported evidence from DRS 25766, proceedings to which the current Respondent wasn't even a party, made findings of deliberate dishonesty against the Complainant based on material never exhibited in these proceedings, and gave no opportunity to respond. That isn't a borderline call; that's a due process failure.

And then there's the expert's own words: "the sole argument advanced by the Complainant." The Complainant explicitly pleaded grounds under 5.1.2 and 5.1.3. The expert's use of the word "sole" is, on the face of the decision, an admission that those grounds weren't considered. That's an appealable error sitting in the decision document itself.

Your suggestion that the decision is probably correct even if the reasoning is flawed doesn't hold up when the reasoning is the test applied, the procedure followed, and the facts found, all of which are wrong.

As for your opening remark about advisers with axes to grind, if the advice is wrong, demonstrate why it's wrong. You've had two posts to do that and haven't touched the strongest grounds. That might be worth reflecting on before the next one.
The appeal proceeds.

The days of Nominet having a blank check to do whatever they please without scrutiny are done. Do you think I have an axe to grind with them, Jeff? If you do think I am grinding the old chopper, tell me if I am justified or if I am just wanting drama, and I am being totally off point with my reasoning ;)

Sometimes the phrase 'Point of principle' has merit and shows the untouchables they get well and truly shafted up the S'#T H#@E.