Festzeit.ch Forum » Offtopic » wayne? dinge die keiner wissen will...
| Autor | Beitrag 301 - 315 |
|---|---|
| checcaFr 8.6.07, 11:36 | mir wayne am viertel vor kunnt är^^ |
| TokeeFr 8.6.07, 12:36 | so und in einer std bini wäg  |
| reeedoFr 8.6.07, 13:23 | hüt isch fritig ! |
| marciFr 8.6.07, 13:41 | es chunt hüt eh no cho pisse |
| reeedoFr 8.6.07, 13:42 | hör uff |
| MythINCFr 8.6.07, 13:47 | ri-ra-rumpelstilzchen |
| DubischauenickFr 8.6.07, 13:50 | MOR C1SMETICS, MR. DEON IURETIGH - the Applicant - applied for the domain names MOR and MORCOSMETICS on 7 February 2006. Mor Cosmetics is the Australian company mentioned in the documentary evidence. MR. DEON IURETIGH is an individual – natural person. Because the general rule is that the individual requesting the registration is considered the applicant, MR. DEON IURETIGH (hereafter “the Applicant”) claimed a prior right in the form of an unregistered trademark protected in the United Kindgom. By the WHOIS database, it was clearly established and the Panel find that in the present case, the individual requesting the registration of the domain names - DEON IURETIGH - decided not to fill out the company field and so clearly intended to apply in his own name. The validation agent received the documentary evidence on 14 March 2006, which was before the 19 March 2006 deadline. The documentary evidence for the two applications is identical and consisted of: an affidavit signed by Gary Richard Allwood (an attorney from Australia), stating that it represents MOR Cosmetics Pty Ltd and that he is aware that MOR has an application pending for the registration of a trademark pursuant to the intellectual property laws governing and applicable in the European Union ; a printout from the OHIM database showing that the Community trademark “MOR” (Nr 003287381) has been registered on 12 August 2005 to the Australian company MOR Cosmetics Pty Ltd; and a certificate of registration and an abstract from the Australian business register showing that the company MOR Cosmetics Pty Ltd is registered as an Australian company (Nr 096 765 481). The validation agent concluded from the documentary evidence that the Applicant did not demonstrate that he was the holder of the claimed prior rights. Therefore, the Respondent rejected the Applicant's application in compliance with the Regulation and Sunrise Rules and the Complaint was denied. |
| reeedoFr 8.6.07, 13:54 | wayne?   |
| DubischauenickFr 8.6.07, 14:01 | On 7 December 2005, the Applicant filed an application under the .eu Registration Policy and Terms and Conditions for Domain Name Applications made during the Phased Registration Period (hereinafter the “Sunrise Rules”) to register the domain name nationalbank.eu during Phase I of the Sunrise Period. The Complainant’s application was refused on the grounds that it had failed to submit sufficient documentary evidence in time. see ADReu Case No. 1262 (nationalbank.eu). On 6 April 2006, LLTF applied to register the domain name nationalbank.eu. LLTF based its application seeking priority under the Sunrise Rules on its claimed ownership of the trademark N&AT&IONALBANK. It claimed that its trademark was registered in the Netherlands. On 10 May LLTF furnished documentary evidence in support of its application and following a prima facie review of the documentation by the validation agent, the Respondent accepted LLTF's application. Subsequently searches of the Benelux and OHIM trademarks databases by both the Complainant and the Respondent produced no result for the trademark N&AT&IONALBANK. The Respondent accepted that LLTF did not have the necessary prior rights required by article 10 (1) of Commission Regulation (EC) No 874/2004 of 28 April 2004 (hereafter "the Regulation"  The Complainant raised three discrete issues: i. the allegation that the registrant of the nationalbank.eu domain name had no bona fide Prior Rights upon which to ground its application during the Sunrise Period; ii. the Complainant’s submission that the Respondent misinterpreted and misapplied the provisions of Article 11 of the Regulation in granting the nationalbank.eu to LLTF based on claimed Prior Rights in the registration of the trade mark N&AT&IONALBANK; iii. the Complainant’s request for attribution of the disputed domain name in the event that this Panel should annul the decision to allocate the domain name to LLTF. The Panel directed that the Respondent’s decision of the Respondent to allocate the domain name nationalbank.eu to LLTF be annulled, as article 10 (1) of the Regulation expressly states that only holders of prior rights which are recognised or established by national or Community law shall be eligible to apply to register domain names during a period of phased registration before general registration of .eu domain starts. LLTF had no qualifying prior rights. The Panel did not need to consider the issues raised by both Parties in relation to the interpretation of Article 11 of the Regulation and in particular the question as to whether Article 11 permits an applicant to eliminate an ampersand (&) from a domain name in circumstances where there is an ampersand (&) in a prior right relied upon. The Panel noted that there are at least two schools of thought on the interpretation of that provision. Finally the Panel rejected the Complainant’s request to have the domain name nationalbank.eu transferred to it. Sub-section B 11 (c) of the ADR Rules provides that a panel has jurisdiction in appropriate cases to direct that the domain name in question shall be transferred, revoked or attributed, That provision however goes on to restrict the jurisdiction of the panel by expressly providing that with regard to any Registry decision relating to a prior right invoked during the phased registration period such measures of transfer and attribution will only be granted by the Panel inter alia if the complainant is the next applicant in the queue for the domain name concerned. The evidence before the Panel is that the Complainant is not the next applicant for the domain name in the queue. The Panel directed that the EURid decision to allocate the domain name nationalbank.eu to LLTF be annulled. |
| marciFr 8.6.07, 14:09 | spannend^^ |
| DubischauenickFr 8.6.07, 14:12 | joa.. mini arbit.... ich muess devo statistike us adr verfahre mache -.- ... scheiss eu domains... |
| DubischauenickFr 8.6.07, 14:12 | apropos: The Complaint centers around the provisions of Article 21 of Regulation 874/2004, specifically subsections 21(1)-(3). My approach to Article 21(1) is a two-step process. First, looking at the demonstration of the rights on which the Complaint rests and, second, the issue of any claim the domain name holder may have to legitimate or good faith usage. I shall deal with these two aspects in turn. Looking at the rights established by national or community law, the Complainant has based its claim on both its company name and its registered trade mark rights. The Respondent has not challenged or questioned the Claimant’s rights in either respect. The Complainant appears to have confused the relationship and identities of the respective companies cited (namely, registration no’s 4322832 and 4092510). However, looking at the information submitted, it seems clear enough that the correct company is registration number 4092510, which was previously The Amateur Swimming Association of Great Britain Limited but which changed its name to British Swimming Limited on 24th January 2006. The Complaint is therefore correctly made in the name of British Swimming and the rights in respect of the company name are supported by the evidence. Regarding trade mark rights, the Complainant provided a copy of the registration certificate for registered trade mark no. 2271770, registered on 6 June 2001. The registration certificate cites the owner as the Amateur Swimming Association of Great Britain Limited, which changed its name as explained above. Although the Complainant has omitted reference to “Limited” in its Complaint, it appears on balance that the Complainant is the owner of the registered trade mark. It is clear from Article 21(1) (which refers, in turn, to Article 10(1)) that a registered trade mark will suffice as prima facie proof of a national or community right. However, the trade mark cited by the Complainant is a combined word and device mark, consisting of the words “British Swimming” and a stylized ‘wave’ device. Section 19 of the Sunrise Rules offers us some guidance in how to view such combined marks. Although concerned with Prior Rights, Section 19 states that if a right is claimed in a composite sign, it will only be accepted if “the word element is predominant, and can be clearly separated from the device element”. Having considered the form of the mark, as depicted on the registration certificate submitted by the Complainant, I consider that the word element is indeed the predominant part of the mark and is clearly separable from the device component. However, we cannot conclude the discussion regarding the trade mark without considering the Respondent’s claim that the mark is generic. In this respect, the Complainant cited a number of WIPO decisions which relate to the issue of the rights in respect of generic or descriptive marks. I do not have the scope to consider these decisions in detail here but I have reviewed them and have taken them into consideration . I am also aware of WIPO’s guidance in this respect; namely that “If the complainant makes a prima facie case that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests, and the respondent fails to show one of the three circumstances under Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, then the respondent may lack a legitimate interest in the domain name, even if it is a domain name comprised of a generic word(s)”. I therefore do not consider that any descriptive content in the mark is sufficient to either undermine the Complainant’s rights entirely or to prevent a proper consideration of the legitimacy or otherwise of the Respondent’s use of the domain. The Claimant maintains that the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the name pursuant to Article 21(2)(a)-(c) and/or has demonstrated bad faith pursuant to Article 21(3)(e) and requests that the domain be revoked under Art 21(1). The Respondent’s response to the Claim rests, in the most part, on the website which the Respondent has developed and which is located at www.5.org.cn. The Respondent asserts that this website, which is entitled “British Swimming Gallery”, was created as a hobby and demonstrates that she has rights or legitimate interests in the domain, it has no commercial advertisements on it and will not mislead consumers. The Respondent states that the website has provided services but she has not explained what these services are. We are therefore concerned with Art's 21(2)(a) and (c), as the Respondent has not submitted evidence in support of legitimacy pursuant to Art 21(2)(b). The Respondent, who appears to be a Chinese woman resident in the UK, makes no other claims to a legitimate interest in the name and would appear to have no personal, company or other connection with the name apart from the website referred to and any related services. I have therefore looked at the cited website very closely. It is a kind of posting site, where those interested in swimming or swimming pools may post photographs. It also contains a facility to enable users to make comments or post messages but this facility does not seem to have been used to any great degree. The majority of the photos on the website seem to be of children swimming but there are also some pictures of animals swimming and also some pictures of various types of swimming pools. The site itself appears to be a standard, free, readily downloadable version available from http://coppermine-gallery.net. The photos also appear to be of the type readily downloadable from the internet and the site appears to have little personalization or real active input. Somewhat unusually, the postings to the site are prominently dated, appearing to be from times both prior to and after the application for or ownership of the domain in question. Overall, I am not convinced by the website. It has the look and feel of something put together quickly, with little or no real traffic or interested activity. I am not convinced by it as any kind of genuine demonstration of legitimate interest or right in the name. There are no goods offered or sold via the site and I consider it would be stretching things to say that the site provides services. The Respondent herself has said that “the domain name britishswimming.eu is unimportant for the Respondent.” It strikes me that there is nothing specifically British about the site, other than perhaps the fact that the respondent is based there. The Respondent could easily, and perhaps more appropriately, have applied for domains which referenced the name ‘British Swimming Gallery’; which domains appear to be available in all forms at the time of writing this decision, including .com and .co.uk versions. While the Claimant has established its rights, I consider the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any legitimate interest or right in the domain name. I have therefore decided that the domain should be revoked. The Claimant has also asked for the transfer of the domain but I cannot agree to do so. The Claimant is listed as British Swimming and Ashley Cox. Mr Cox has not proven his locus standii and the while I have exercised a degree of discretion concerning the Claimant being shown as British Swimming, it would not be appropriate to transfer the name until British Swimming Limited alone has applied in a full and accurate manner via an approved registrar. The request for transfer is therefore denied. Finally, the Claimant’s claims in relation to Art 21(3)(e) appears to be poorly founded. The domain name is not a personal name and the Claimant’s claims in this respect are rejected. I also consider that the Complainant’s claims with regard to rights in the domain www.britishswimming.org have no merit. |
| marciFr 8.6.07, 14:13 | Hack-proof and crash resistant - have you discovered the OS world's best-kept secret? OpenVMS offers unmatched robustness for business-critical apps OpenVMS (originally known as VMS) is probably the best designed and most robust general purpose operating system in existence. It is also one of the least-known and appreciated, simply because it works quietly in the background without drama, unlike its noisier and more fussy siblings and offspring. You will typically find OpenVMS in any environment that is serious about high availability, disaster tolerance, security, performance and scalability, especially when running real-time applications. Users include banks, stock exchanges, healthcare, manufacturing, aerospace, online billing, lotteries, chip manufacturing, oil and gas production, power stations, railways, government and secure public sector applications. In short, anything that really has to work. Uptime measured in years OpenVMS system uptimes are often measured in years - it being a point of honor to avoid rebooting and causing disruption unless utterly essential. There are clusters out there with uninterrupted service uptimes in excess of 15 years, even if individual machines have been occasionally rebooted, upgraded or replaced. That is a far cry from today's "reboot and restart" culture, where users seem willing to tolerate disruption to service - indeed, they have come to expect it. If only they were aware there is a better way. OpenVMS is one of the industry's best-kept secrets - those in the know would not consider using anything else for business-critical systems. OpenVMS runs on three hardware platforms: Vax (32-bit Cisc), Alpha (64-bit Risc) and Itanium (64-bit Epic). A system disc from any Alpha will boot and run on any other Alpha. The same goes for Vaxes, including software-emulated Vaxes. Likewise for the latest HP Integrity servers. OpenVMS will boot and run on anything from an RX2600 to a Superdome. This scalability and interoperability derives from the excellent internal architectural structure of OpenVMS. The bigger machines (Superdome, GS1280, etc) can be hard-partitioned to make a group of hardware resources inaccessible from other partitions. OpenVMS also supports soft partitions, using a mechanism known as Galaxy. This allows CPU resources to be dynamically reallocated between soft partitions to meet changing workloads. Partitioned systems are often used for server consolidation. Extending that by dynamic reallocation of hardware resources leads us to adaptive computing. mi arbet  |
| spargelauflaufFr 8.6.07, 14:13 | wayne? |
| marciFr 8.6.07, 14:14 | Pioneer of clustering OpenVMS pioneered clustering in the mid-1980s and is still the standard to which all others aspire. It provides a "shared everything" model with minimal cluster state transition latency if a cluster member fails. This model allows all the resources in a cluster to be used concurrently, not in a failover or standby mode. There are many disaster-tolerant, split-site clusters in operation that continue to provide uninterrupted service without loss of data, even when whole sites fail. The largest supported OpenVMS cluster is 96 nodes - where each node can be a large multiprocessor system. Cluster interconnects can be anything from the original CI hardware to Gigabit Ethernet, or even Galactic memory in a soft-partitioned system. Many operations staff find using better-known operating systems frustrating in comparison to OpenVMS. The issues are primarily poor availability and reliability, combined with the difficulty of obtaining performance analysis and fault log data for capacity planning and fault analysis purposes. OpenVMS is generally seen as the gold standard for such things. For instance, OpenVMS comes with essential tools and facilities (most prominently, image back-up and restore) built in, rather than having to be added on. In most cases, you simply install it, configure it for your workload, add your applications and system-management utilities (typically DCL command files), then run it as a black box operational environment. As an operating system with a real-time pre-emptive scheduling mechanism, OpenVMS has always been capable of handling complex real-time events. The interrupt-driven I/O subsystem design aims for minimal latency, so OpenVMS is capable of exceedingly high, sustained I/O throughput, especially with V7.3-2 on Alpha EV7 (Marvel) systems. It will be interesting to see how V8.2 on Alpha and the Integrity server range compare when it is released. |
Als angemeldeter festzeit.ch Member kannst du Themen erstellen und auf Beiträge antworten.
Infos/Hilfe » ©