The Respondent’s actions in this respect are surely breathtaking in their presumptuousness,
or stupidity. Knowing that the Complainant had objected to the Respondent’s opportunistic
(mis)appropriation of its name and marks in the Domain Names “humbersideairport.co.uk”
and “humbersideinternationalairport.co.uk”, and also having previously registered
the domain name “humbersideairport.com” (the WHOIS record shows this was done on
10 March, 2000, which was the same day the Respondent registered “humbersideairport.co.uk”),
and knowing that it had no authority whatsoever to act for the Complainant, it proceeded
to register the domain name “humbersideinternationalairport.com” as well (the WHOIS
record shows this was done in the Respondent’s name, and not in the Complainant’s
name), and then had the brazen effrontery to present this as safeguarding the Complainant’s
interests. The Expert notes that the WHOIS record for “humbersideinternationalairport.com”
shows that this domain name was created on 25 November, 2002 (the day before the
Respondent’s solicitor’s letter) and so the Expert believes that it is likely that
the statement that this domain name was “for sale” (impliedly by some undisclosed
third party) at that time is another misrepresentation.
The reality is (means your lying) most probably that this domain name was not previously
registered, and that the Respondent itself caused it to be registered in the expectation
that it might strengthen its perceived bargaining position with the Complainant.
(means extortion)
The Expert also considers that the Respondent’s demand for £2,000
is indeed “more than reasonable”, but not in the sense apparently intended by the
Respondent’s solicitors. Rather, it is support for the contention that the Respondent
did clearly register the Domain Names in this case “primarily for the purposes of
selling, renting or otherwise transferring the Domain Name(s) to the Complainant
or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the
Respondent's documented out-
Consequently, the Expert concludes that the Domain Names have each manifestly been registered or otherwise acquired in a manner, which at the time when the registration or acquisition took place, took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant’s Rights, and that each is an Abusive Registration for the purposes of the Policy.
8. Decision:
Having concluded that the Complainant has Rights in respect of names or marks which are similar to each of the Domain Names and that each Domain Name, in the hands of the Respondent, is an Abusive Registration, the Expert determines that the Domain Names, humbersideairport.co.uk and humbersideinternationalairport.co.uk, should both be transferred to the Complainant as requested.
With respect to the Complainant’s second and third requests for relief in terms of
payment of indemnity costs and interest, the Expert notes that the Policy (Paragraph
10) provides only for implementation of a Decision “that a Domain Name should be
cancelled, suspended, transferred or otherwise amended”. There is no provision for
making or enforcing any Decision beyond this. Consequently, the Expert declines the
Complainant’s requests for additional relief beyond transfer of the Domain Names
as above.
July 10, 2002
Keith Gymer Date
Particulars
(i) Letter from Metcalfe Copeman & Pettefar Solicitors on behalf of the
Respondent dated 13 November 2003. Letter contains a demand for £2000 for transfer
of the Domain Names.
(ii) Letter from Metcalfe Copeman & Pettefar Solicitors on behalf
of the Respondent dated 26 November 2003. Letter contains a demand for £2000 for
transfer of the Domain Names and informs of Respondent’s purchase of www.humbersideinternationalairport.com;
(iii)
Letter from Metcalfe Copeman & Pettefar Solicitors on behalf of the Respondent dated
18 December 2003. Letter contains a demand for £4000 for transfer of the Domain Names.
9.
Further or in the alternative, the Respondent registered the Domain Names with the
sole or primary purpose of the same being a blocking registration against the Complainant’s
rights in the valuable goodwill and reputation associated with the Marks and each
of them. Paragraphs 2 to 6 herein are repeated.
10. Further or in the alternative, the Respondent registered the Domain Names with
the sole or primary purpose of unfairly disrupting the Complainant’s business. Paragraphs
2 to 6 herein are repeated. The Domain Names may be used to divert business from
the Complainant and/or by wrongfully holding the Domain Names the Respondent is preventing
the Complainant expanding into internet-
RELIEF SOUGHT
1. Paragraphs 8 and 9 above are repeated. By reason of the same the Domain Names,
and each of them:
(i) are identical or similar to a mark in which the Complainant
has rights; and/or
(ii) in the hands of the Respondent are Abusive Registrations
within the meaning of Nominet’s Dispute Resolution Policy. The Complainant therefore
requests that the Domain Names be transferred to the Complainant.
2. Costs on an
indemnity basis to be paid to the Complainant by the Respondent.
3. Interest on any
sums due.
Respondent:
The Respondent made no Response to, and raised no challenge to, any of the facts and evidence submitted by the Complainant.
7. Discussion and Findings:
General
Paragraph 2 of the Policy requires that, for the Complainant to succeed, it must prove to the Expert, on the balance of probabilities, both that it has Rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar to each Domain Name at issue; and that each Domain Name in this case, in the hands of the Respondent, is an Abusive Registration as defined in Paragraph 1 of the Policy.
Complainant’s Rights
The Complainant in this case has asserted that it has rights in the names and marks
HUMBERSIDE AIRPORT and HUMBERSIDE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT and that these names are
each identical or similar to the Domain Names at issue. The Complainant has no trade
mark registration for HUMBERSIDE AIRPORT or for HUMBERSIDE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT
itself. However, as the Complainant has stated, it is clear that it has used the
HUMBERSIDE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT name at least since 1987 in general and it has provided
commercial figures as evidence of the extent of that use since at least 1996/97.
It has also evidently used the name “HUMBERSIDE AIRPORT” in relation to the internet
(e.g. by use of its domain name Humberside-
Accordingly, for the purposes of the Policy, the Expert concludes that the Complainant does have Rights in this case in respect of names or marks, which are similar to each of the Domain Names at issue in this case.
Abusive Registration
The Complainant also has to show that each Domain Name is an Abusive Registration.
Paragraph 1 of the Policy defines “Abusive Registration” as a Domain Name which either:
i. was registered or otherwise acquired in a manner, which at the time when the registration
or acquisition took place, took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to
the Complainant’s Rights; OR
ii. has been used in a manner, which took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to the Complainant’s Rights.
A non-
i. Circumstances indicating that the Respondent has registered or otherwise acquired
the Domain Name: A. primarily for the purposes of selling, renting or otherwise transferring
the Domain Name to the Complainant or to a competitor of the Complainant, for valuable
consideration in excess of the Respondent's documented out-
ii. Circumstances indicating that the Respondent is using the Domain Name in a way
which has confused people or businesses into believing that the Domain Name is registered
to, operated or authorised by, or otherwise connected with the Complainant;
iii.
In combination with other circumstances indicating that the Domain Name in dispute
is an Abusive Registration, the Complainant can demonstrate that the Respondent is
engaged in a pattern of making Abusive Registrations; or
iv. It is independently
verified that the Respondent has given false contact details to [Nominet]. Paragraph
3b of the Policy states expressly that: Failure on the Respondent's part to use the
Domain Name for the purposes of e-
The evidence in this case, which has not been contradicted directly by the Respondent,
suggests that the Respondent knowingly took the Complainant’s name(s) and registered
them in the Domain Names in anticipation and expectation that it might eventually
make a profit out of selling them back to the Complainant. The Complainant would
indeed appear to have some grounds for asserting that the Respondent’s actions amount
to passing-
In WH Smith Ltd v. Peter Colman [2001] FSR 9, the Court of Appeal, considering the
circumstances in which "without prejudice" privilege might be waived, held specifically
that: "To fall outside the protection of the "without prejudice" rule, [a] communication
had to disclose "unambiguous impropriety". Other Experts have suggested that a less
restrictive approach may be justified in DRS proceedings.
However, in the present case, the Expert is satisfied that the letter sent on behalf of the Respondent, (from Metcalfe Copeman & Pettefar) dated 26 November, 2002, in particular, provides evidence of ample impropriety by the Respondent to justify its consideration.
In this letter, the Respondent’s solicitors Metcalfe Copeman & Pettefar stated: CAN YOU BELIEVE THIS BIT?? THIS IS WHAT METCALFE COPEMAN & PETTEFAR HAD THE GALL TO WRITE ON BEHALF OF THEIR CLIENTS. . . . . WHAT A LOAD OF BOLLOCKS.
“…Our client, yesterday, carried out a search to find out what domain names were registered to your client. It was astonished to discover that humbersideinternationalairport.com was for sale on the internet. Accordingly, to safeguard your client’s interests, it purchased that domain name…” . . . . . THEY WERE DOING THEM A FAVOUR????
The letter concluded: “…Our client is willing to transfer all four names to your client for the same sum as previously offered, namely £2,000. (which went up to £4,000 the following month . .) Given what has transpired it considers that offer more than reasonable.” (called extortion)
B.S.E . . . BOVINE SOLID EXCREMENT
PERHAPS IT WAS TO PAY FOR THIS? OR DIDN’T ANYONE IN THE FIRM NOTICE he was robbing
Grannies for 5 years? I THINK SOMEONE WOULD HAVE NOTICED IF I HAD TURNED UP IN A
BENTLEY TURBO. On £33 grand a year.
Just goes to show how easy it is.
From http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,,183511,00.html
Wednesday March 22, 2000
The Guardian
(Metcalfe Copeman & Pettefar) Solicitor's £175,000 theft spree
A solicitor who stole more than £175,000 from his clients to fund his passion for luxury cars has been jailed for three years and eight months. Stuart Nelson, 48, raided the accounts set up for the beneficiaries of mainly elderly widows while executing their wills and holding power of attorney over their affairs.
The cars he bought included a Bentley Turbo for £48,000 and a Jaguar XJ12 for £29,338
during his five-
A jury at Norwich crown court was discharged from giving verdicts on the remaining five charges of theft and they were ordered to remain on file. Judge David Mellor told him on Monday that he had "besmirched" his profession and brought disgrace and hardship on himself and his family.
He added: "You devoted much of your professional skills to pillaging clients' accounts and covering your tracks over a substantial period of years." The judge said that Nelson's depression was not an excuse for the thefts and an aggravating feature was that the crimes were carefully planned.
Nelson, a married father of two who was also a scoutmaster, earned £33,000 a year as a salaried partner with the law firm Metcalfe, Copeman and Pettefar in King's Lynn, Norfolk.
Nelson was dismissed from the firm where he had worked for 24 years after auditors discovered his financial irregularities. The firm said all those cheated had been reimbursed by the company's insurers.
Well that was handy . . . Who got the cars?
Click here for a REAL test drive. See what its like to be a Solicitor at MCP
I’m off wid da money.
Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service DRS 01009
HUMBERSIDE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT LIMITED v.
LINCOLNSHIRE TRADING COMPANY LIMITED
Decision of Independent Expert
1. Parties: Complainant: Humberside International Airport Limited
Address: Humberside International Airport
Kirmington South Humberside
Represented by: Irwin Mitchell, Solicitors of Leeds
Respondent: Lincolnshire Trading Company Limited
Address: Farlesthorpe Road
Alford Lincolnshire Postcode: LN13 9PS
2. Domain Names:
humbersideairport.co.uk; humbersideinternationalairport.co.uk (“the Domain Names”)
3. Procedural Background:
The complaint was received by Nominet in full with hardcopies on 21 May, 2003. Nominet
validated the complaint and informed the Respondent, by both letter and by e-
Service had been invoked and that the Respondent had 15 days (until 17 June, 2003) to submit a Response. No Response or reply of any sort was received. Nominet informed the Complainant accordingly on 19 June, 2003, noting that Informal Mediation was not an option in this situation, and inviting the Complainant to pay the fee to obtain an Expert Decision pursuant to paragraph 6 of the Nominet UK Dispute Resolution Service Policy (“the Policy”). The fee was duly paid on 30 June, 2003 and received by Nominet 2 July, 2003. On 2 July, 2003, Nominet invited the undersigned, Keith Gymer (“the Expert”), to provide a decision on this case and, following confirmation to Nominet that the Expert knew of no reason why he could not properly accept the invitation to act in this case and of no matters which ought to be drawn to the attention of the parties, which might appear to call into question his independence and/or impartiality, Nominet duly appointed the undersigned as Expert on the 3 July, 2003.
4. Outstanding Formal/Procedural Issues (if any): None.
5. The Facts:
The Complainant was evidently incorporated in its present name in 1987. It operates
the Humberside International Airport and has an established web site at www.humberside-
6. The Parties’ Contentions:
Complainant: The Complainant has asserted that, for each Domain Name at issue:
i)
The Complainant has Rights in respect of a name or mark which is identical or similar
to the Domain Name (Policy Paragraph 2a(i)); and ii) The Domain Name, in the hands
of the Respondent, is an Abusive Registration (Policy Paragraph 2a(ii)). In support
of its case, the Complainant submits that:
1. The Complainant is, and has at all material times been, the sole owner of the
reputation and valuable goodwill associated with the marks "HUMBERSIDE AIRPORT" and
“HUMBERSIDE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT” ("the Marks"). The domain names www.humbersideairport.co.uk
and www.humbersideinternationalairport.co.uk ("the Domain Names") have been acquired
by Lincolnshire Trading Company Limited ("the Respondent") in direct infringement
of rights in the goodwill and reputation attaching to the Marks and belonging to
the Complainant.
2. The Complainant has accrued a substantial reputation and valuable
goodwill in the UK (and internationally) associated with the Marks by offering air
transport and associated services under and in relation to the Marks and each of
them. Particulars Financial year Number of Passengers 1996/97 288,480 1997/98 339,735
1998/99 362,447 1999/00 436,030 2000/01 456,692 2001/02 440,126 2002/03 502,691 3.
Further, the Complainant's business has been extensively advertised and promoted
under the Marks and each of them by or on behalf of the Complainant. Particulars
In the last 3 years, the Complainant has spent approximately half a million pounds
on advertising /marketing promotional activities, including (approx) £166,000 on
radio, outdoor, newspaper and magazine advertisements, £200,000 on direct mail and
printed materials and £130,000 on trade activity/promotion.
4. In the premises the Marks have acquired a valuable goodwill and reputation in the UK and internationally. The Marks and associated goodwill have come to be associated with the Complainant and no other. The Complainant is the owner, and has exclusive rights to, the reputation and valuable goodwill associated with the Marks and any similar marks.
5. The Domain Names were registered by the Respondent with EasySpace Limited: (i) on 10 March 2000 for the Domain Name www.humbersideairport.co.uk; and (ii) on 31 March 2000 for the Domain Name www.humbersideinternationalairport.co.uk. The Respondent does not have any bona fide interest in, or association with, the Marks or either of them. The Domain Names do not have associated with them any active website. The Domain Names are identical or similar to the Marks and each of them.
6. The Domain Names are, and/or may in future be used as, a representation to the public that the Domain Names are owned, operated, approved by or otherwise connected with the Complainant. Further or in the alternative, the Domain Names may in future be used to represent that the Respondent's business is that of the Complainant or is owned or otherwise associated with the Complainant. Such representations are false and are likely to cause confusion and deception amongst the public. By reason of such representations, the Claimant's have and/or may in future suffer loss and damage.
7. In the premises, and at the time of registration and all material times since, the Domain Names and each of them: (i) take unfair advantage of the Complainant's valuable goodwill and reputation in the Marks and each of them; and/or (ii) are unfairly detrimental to the Complainant's valuable goodwill and reputation in the Marks and each of them.
8. Further, the registration by the Respondent of the Domain Names amounts to an Abusive Registration for the following reasons: (i) Respondent registered the Domain Names with the sole or primary purpose of selling the Domain Names to the Complainant for monies in excess of the Respondent's out of pocket expenses. Correspondence between the Respondent’s representatives and the Complainant’s representatives [annexed as appendices to the hardcopy Complaint] demonstrates the bad faith and intentions of the Respondent in obtaining the Domain Names. (ii) The Respondent has engaged in a pattern of making abusive registrations as evidenced by its wrongful registration of the domain names www.humbersideairport.com on 10 March 2000 and of www.humbersideinternationalairport.com on 25 November 2002. The latter domain name was registered by the Respondent after being informed of the Complainant’s rights.
Continued . . . . .
We are all used to Solicitors charging ‘extortionate’ fees . . they call them . . But you don’t expect them to actually aid and abet it for real.
MCP Law are probably upset at me owning a web site with a name very much like their own. And there are complaints procedures that can be made to Nominet about that. . . . However MCP Law are more used to extorting others over domain names than they are defending them. According to this little gem they attempted to extort £4,000 from Humberside International Airport Ltd on behalf of clients described herein as, amongst other things “ breathtaking in their presumptuousness” . . . “sought to extract disproportionate recompense from, and to take unfair advantage” . . Simple extortion to you and I
Their’ Solicitors Metcalfe Copeman & Pettefar fared no better “the Expert is satisfied
that the letter sent on behalf of the Respondent, by MCP dated 26 November, 2002,
in particular, provides evidence of ample impropriety” DIRTY TRICKS to you and me.
But lying on behalf of a client would do as well. It’s bad enough when someone tries
to fleece another. But when a Solicitor knowingly does it on their behalf . . . Well!
. . . . That’s exactly what this whole site is all about after all.
It’s a long read
but skip the boring bits I’ve highlighted all the juicy bits near the bottom of
the page. . . Or click here and go straight there.
The IWG, Denniss Matthews, Nathan Teitelbaum, (Fine Land Properties) Granny Robbing Scheme . . Will they deny it? . .
Click here.
Ridaco Developments Northern Ireland (who?) will buy your property UNSEEN . . . “NO Agent will call to INSPECT” . . We pay 10% over Guide price even if the property is falling down. Fantastic Generosity. Only through Barnett Ross the no signature required Auctioneers. Contact A ndrew Mahon NI for details.
It’s THE UNCREDIBLES.
Watch Aunty and Unc-
Visit
Barnett Ross the no deposit no identification Auctioneers. We will cross out any
contract and put a TOTALLY FICTITIOUS name in it’s place. NO SIGNATURES? NO PROBLEM.
Telephone bid but no form? Don’t despair we’ll fill it in for you. Can’t set a price?
We will bid NO MAX for you. Can’t think of a name to bid under? We’ll make one up
for you. Never mind our rules. Barnett Ross’s Steven Grossman makes sure YOU get
the property you want. Barnett Ross @ Radisson SAS Portman Hotel is recommended
by Wanker Solicitors IWG ‘s Daniel Ginsbury
Granny Swindler Nathan Teitelbaum uses Barnett Ross Auctioneers at The Radisson SAS Portman Hotel. Wankers Ingram Winter Green Conveyancing in association with The CROOKS at Metcalfe Copeman Pettefar Peterborough.
NOTICE TO ALL search engine, ISP’s, Nominet, Hosting Co’s, domain name providers
and the like. ANY adverse legal content on my sites . . . . Is AT LEAST ONE YEAR
OLD . . . but more likely 2 years old. . . . and therefore is EXEMPT from prosecution
in ANY form under UK Law by virtue of being OUT of STATUTE. Please ignore any threats
of legal action. . . They will just be ‘trying it on’. . . besides it’s ALL true
otherwise they would have sued me.as per Google search defamation limitation.Pre-
http://www.british-
Colin’s NEW sites
Barnett Ross the no signature required to bid Auctioneers.
Steven
Grossman will invent a name for you.
www.barnett-
www.mcp-
(six months before they admitted they had conspired to lie to me)
I am sick and tired of bent Solicitors conspiring with their clients to defraud, to lie,& to deceive. In order to attempt to defray their clients liabilities. The property mentioned above has now had FOUR different owners since 2003. Each one dumping it on to the next with alacrity . These sleazy property Co’s buy the property cheap. (Or think it is at the time.) Then they employ bent lawyers to try and wriggle out of the liabilities, that go with this ‘bargain’ purchase. Later they regret buying it, but only because of me, and the fight I put up against them..
(the previous lot Fineland Properties Ltd actually advertise for such ‘problem’ properties [see here)
knowing that they and their solicitors IWG have a standing arrangement with Denniss Matthews to conspire and defraud in this manner)
Because of the problems with, and the dispute that has taken place since it was 1st sold.
See a brief History here.
It became more difficult to sell each time. AND a different lie had to be made in order to get round the problem of liability.
A WALL OF SILENCE. . . you can’t penetrate that wall because the corrupt Law Society won’t intervene. . . . You’re on you’re own pal. . . and they know it. . . . . and normally that wall of silence is very effective indeed. . . .
HOWEVER . . . when you own 10 page 1 Google web-
The letters Click here.
Solicitors MCP-
PARTNERS IN CRIME
The CROOKS at MCP Law
On Scotland Yards own NOT official web site
You want to catch a few criminals easy peasy Ian?
Here they are.
It’s THE UNCREDIBLES.
Watch Aunty and
Unc-
Visit
Barnett Ross the no deposit no identification Auctioneers. We will cross out the
contract and put another in it’s place.
NO SIGNATURES?????.
NO PROBLEM.
Telephone
bid but no form? Don’t despair we’ll fill it in for you.
Can’t set a price? We will
bid NO MAX for you. Barnett Ross will break every rule to make sure YOU get the property
you want. Barnett Ross are conveniently just round the corner from Wankers IWG Solicitors.
Ridaco Developments Northern Ireland will buy your property UNSEEN . . . “NO Agent
will call to INSPECT” . . We pay 10% over Guide price even if the property is falling
down.
Fantastic Generosity.
If we don’t like our relatives will buy it off us.
Ridaco
Developments are clients of the CROOKS @ MCP Law
http://www.british-
Colin’s NEW sites
Barnett Ross the no forms required to bid Auctioneers.
Contact Andrew
Mahon NI plaintiff 1’s chief fixer for details.
He knows Steven Grossman so doesn’t
have to fill out all those nasty Money Laundering forms.
Or ANY forms come to that.
www.barnett-
(Andrew Mahon
3 Pettigo Rd, Kesh,
Co
Fermanagh, NI.
02868 632102
0775 665878)
Steven Grossman MRICS
sgrossman@barnettross.co.uk
Have a word with Steve about how to avoid filling in all
those nasty IDENTITY forms.
He’ll do them for you.
And make a name up for you too.
What a STAR . . .
HARRY ROFFEY
In his Seventies and having a go at the HSBC and Kent Police.
His site is
www.corruptpolice.co.uk/
Unlike
some of the scum advertised throughout my sites Harry is a really nice Guy until
you upset him.
Bit like me really.
See what I mean.
Click here