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-of-pocket costs directly associated with acquiring or using the Domain Name”. The evidence further supports the conclusion that the Respondent “is engaged in a pattern of making Abusive Registrations” – and that it is reasonable to conclude that registration of the two Domain Names directly at issue amounts to a sufficient “pattern” in this case.

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

WAS IT A NO WIN NO FEE MCP?

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-based trading and promotion.

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-airport.co.uk” since at least 1998. Its name is used directly in relation to its airport services and on its website. It is apparent that such use predates the registration of the Domain Names at issue by the Respondent. The Respondent has not challenged any of the submissions made by the Complainant regarding the Complainants rights and reputation in the names HUMBERSIDE AIRPORT and HUMBERSIDE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT. In the Expert’s view, in these circumstances, the Complainant’s submissions are sufficient to establish a basic claim to the existence of common law rights in the name HUMBERSIDE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT as a company name and as an unregistered trade mark, and in HUMBERSIDE AIRPORT as an unregistered trade mark through its use on the company’s website, and otherwise.

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-exhaustive list of factors, which may be evidence that the Domain Name is an Abusive Registration are set out in Paragraph 3a of the Policy:

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-of-pocket costs directly associated with acquiring or using the Domain Name; B. as a blocking registration against a name or mark in which the Complainant has Rights; or C. primarily for the purpose of unfairly disrupting the business of the Complainant;

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-mail or a web-site is not in itself evidence that the Domain Name is an Abusive Registration. However, ultimately, the factors listed in Paragraph 3 of the Policy are only exemplary and indicative. They are not definitive. It is Paragraph 1 of the Policy, which provides the applicable definition as indicated above.

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-off and that the Domain Names might each be used as an “instrument of fraud”, as contemplated by the Court of Appeal in its judgment in the “One In A Million” case (British Telecommunications plc & Others v. One In A Million Limited & Others, [1999] FSR 1), although in the Expert’s view the Court’s conclusions in that case were applied to marks which were “household names”. HUMBERSIDE AIRPORT and HUMBERSIDE INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT might arguably not qualify in that respect. However, the Respondent has plainly acted to misappropriate the Complainant’s property – their goodwill in the names in this case – and having registered those names in the Domain Names has sought to extract disproportionate recompense from, and to take unfair advantage of, the Complainant’s established rights and reputation in the names. It is to be observed that the correspondence between the parties respective solicitors, which was annexed in support of the Complaint in this case, might ordinarily be considered privileged, at least in part. The initial substantive response from the Respondent’s solicitors, for example, was expressly marked “without prejudice”. The DRS, as a private administrative proceeding, does not necessarily exclude consideration of such correspondence. Nonetheless, in the present Expert’s view, as previously expressed in the concluding observations in the Decision in DRS Case 00058 [nokiaringtones.co.uk], and for the same reasons as would apply in Court proceedings, caution should be shown in considering evidence which might otherwise be privileged in Court proceedings.

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

From http://66.249.93.104/search?q=cache:BZ4ZEG_uIeAJ:www.nic.uk
/digitalAssets/1539_humbersideairport.pdf+metcalfe+copeman+pettefar
&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=79

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-mail (which was bounced as “host unknown”) on 23 May, 2003, noting that the Dispute Resolution

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-airport.co.uk  (the domain name humberside-airport.co.uk was registered to Humberside International Airport Limited on 6 April, 1998). It appears that the Complainant has no UK trade mark registrations itself for the names Humberside Airport or Humberside International Airport. The Respondent, Lincolnshire Trading Company Limited, was incorporated on 26 March, 1998. From the WHOIS records, the Domain Names humbersideairport.co.uk and humbersideinternationalairport.co.uk were registered for Lincolnshire Trading Company Ltd. Trading As “Lincolnshire Trading Company Ltd” on , 10 March, 2000 and 31 March, 2000 respectively, with the Registrant’s Address as indicated for the Respondent above.

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.

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.

PERHAPS IT WAS TO PAY FOR THIS? OR DIDN’T ANYONE IN THE FIRM  NOTICE?
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-year spree. Nelson initially denied 15 charges of stealing a total of £299,367, but his trial earlier this month was halted when he changed his plea to guilty to 10 charges of theft totalling £178,930.

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.

Click here for a REAL test drive. See what its like to be a Solicitor at MCP

I’m off wid da money.

What did the lovely Lisa do that prevents MCP Law doing anything about this site?

Click here

Wanted for questioning Wwwww Nnnnn Xxxxxxx

Question time in the boardroom at Fffffff Eeeeee Limited Enniskillen NI

Fffff Eeeee Ltd Play the Weakest Link.

ROGUES GALLERY

PARTNERS IN CRIME
The CROOKS at MCP Law

On Scotland Yards own NOT official web site

www.sir-ian-blair.co.uk

You want to catch a few criminals easy peasy Ian?
Here they are.

Conspiracy to Defraud Contrary to Common Law. You won’t even have to do the leg work . . .it’s all here on my sites. Just follw the footsteps.  Might be safer to stick to asbos on Kids  though. Locking Lawyers up is a bit tricky. You never know what Lodge they’re in.

MUG SHOTS

MUG SHOTS

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-redible ‘ fly’ from Northern Ireland and and buy a shop with Andrew Mahon . . . a dangerous feat with blindfolds on . . AMAZING
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 “lying piece of pigshit” Solicitor

SARAH (LIAR) ADLAM here . . . Deserves to be locked up for what she did. Not only was she NOT ALLOWED to ACT in this matter. EVERYTHING she did was on behalf of herself and MCP LAW. . . . See the IMPROPRIETY of SARAH ADLAM and her pet barrister Matthew Hutchings. . . .Unlike Lisa Richardson MCP Law who was probably only doing what she was told . . . She must have sat down for hours planning skullduggery and PERJURY with her clients and Matthew Hutchings. . . And she wanted to charge ME £15,000 for doing it too. I bet she wished she hadn’t now.

MORE CROOKS AT MCP Law Norfolk here . . See the Impropriety of CROOK Sarah Adlam below..

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-ross.co.uk
www.barnettross.org.uk
(Andrew Mahon  
3 Pettigo Rd, Kesh,
Co Fermanagh, NI.
02868 632102
0775 665878)
Barnett Ross Auctioneers . . . We laugh at money laundering regulations.
But will the police investigate?

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/

He used to drive the BIG RED BUS. A really nice Guy until you upset him.
Bit like me really.
See what I mean.
Click here