Steve Firth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:45:56 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Nor does Dave 'sneak' into this group -
he couldn't be more honest about what he does if he tried.

Ah, another person leaping to erroneous conclusions. Who accused
"Dave" of sneaking in anywhere?

Errrm. You did.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Intellectual property theft?

I'm all for fair competition, but this is unfair - in particular the
deliberate passing off by including "medway handyman" in his own site
content.

SNIP

Andy, thank you so much. I have enough info here to scare the sh*t out of
him. I owe you a pint.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

The Medway Handyman wrote:
wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Intellectual property theft?
I'm all for fair competition, but this is unfair - in particular the
deliberate passing off by including "medway handyman" in his own site
content.

Dave, have you seen this one? No 1 hit when you google for "Medway
Handyman":

http://www.rogerfox.com

Steve Firth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:46:16 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:57:49 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Or he might just be a complete ****wit like you.

Touched a nerve eh? What on earth made you think I was talking about
you?

Only the fact that you are a proven ****wit really.

Aww bless, you need to have a word with dot. He has strong views about
people who abuse others at this time of night.

Actually, I think he would agree that you are a complete ****wit. JMO.

For the record, I'm happy to abuse ****wit's like you 24/7.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:24:30 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:45:56 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Nor does Dave 'sneak' into this group -
he couldn't be more honest about what he does if he tried.

Ah, another person leaping to erroneous conclusions. Who accused
"Dave" of sneaking in anywhere?

Errrm. You did.

And where would that be? Come on, it can't be hard to show where I did such
a thing, if I did.

The Medway Handyman wrote:
Just got the new Yellow Pages and looked under Handyman to check the
competition. Amazed to find www.kent-handyman.co.uk who appears to have
stolen his wording directly from my web site!

He has even stolen my price structure! Not only that, he uses the phrase
The Medway Handyman in his meta tags.

Using "THe Medway Handyman" in meta tags could be regarded as passing
off, though not a strong case in itself. If he has copied chunks of your
site word for word then that is breach of copyright.
As is noted elsewhere in this thread, if the site is commercial then the
nominet registration cannot conceal the domain registrant's address

--
djc

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
I'm afraid I must disagree. Yes, Dave does ask for help, but he's also
very helpful towards others. I personally find his contribution
valuable, and see nothing wrong with him asking questions relating to
his work.

I have no problem with this, but he's in the wrong place, just as the
truck drivers infesting uk.rec.driving are in the wrong place.

This group would be very much worse off without the pros that contribute
to it. The *true* pros, obviously.

--
*What happens when none of your bees wax? *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:45:56 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Nor does Dave 'sneak' into this group -
he couldn't be more honest about what he does if he tried.

Ah, another person leaping to erroneous conclusions. Who accused "Dave"
of sneaking in anywhere?

Don't be a pillock, Steve. By quoting only one person in your post you're
referring to that person by default. If you meant the post to be general,
no quote was necessary.

--
*Reality is the illusion that occurs due to the lack of alcohol *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 21 Nov 2006 16:21:35 -0800, Andy Dingley wrote:

this "medway handyman" meta tag is not merely
similarity, it can only be clear intent to deceive. The purchase of the
Google AdWords covering "medway handyman" are also strong evidence of
this.

Hmmm, YANAL. I can't see that the case is as clearcut as you are trying to
make out.

He does use "The maidstone handyman" and the use of the Google adwords
"medway handyman" is no more suspicions than the use of "kent handyman"
"maidstone handyman" etc.

There's no evidence where it matters of attempts to pass off, and I think a
lawyer would struggle to make a case that key words inserted where a user
cannot see them without some effort is an attempt to "pass off".

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:36:44 GMT, Lobster wrote:

The Medway Handyman wrote:
wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Intellectual property theft?
I'm all for fair competition, but this is unfair - in particular the
deliberate passing off by including "medway handyman" in his own site
content.

Dave, have you seen this one? No 1 hit when you google for "Medway
Handyman":

Umm that's not passing off, nor is it the No. 1 hit. It's simply a
sponsored link that appears when you put in the keywords "medway" and
"handyman".

I'm not convinced that a case of passing off will succeed against the other
bloke either. He's using the search terms to trap searches, but he does not
represent himself on the site as "The Medway Handyman".

It may be possible to persuade him to stop using the search terms, but I
can't see that if he drops "The Medway Handyman" from the metadata that it
will make any difference to a search. Nor can be stopped from using
"medway" or "handyman" in the metadata. No more than Microsoft can take
action against Apple for talking about windows in relationship to software.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:42:19 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:46:16 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:57:49 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

Or he might just be a complete ****wit like you.

Touched a nerve eh? What on earth made you think I was talking about
you?

Only the fact that you are a proven ****wit really.

Aww bless, you need to have a word with dot. He has strong views about
people who abuse others at this time of night.

Actually, I think he would agree that you are a complete ****wit. JMO.

I'm glad that you have found a little chum.

For the record, I'm happy to abuse ****wit's like you 24/7.

Good for you, I hope it makes you happy. And the irony of being called a
****wit by a man who would have difficulty finding his arse with both hands
is not lost upon me.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:50:25 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

This group would be very much worse off without the pros that contribute
to it. The *true* pros, obviously.

K3WL where can a get a blow job for £5?

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:53:09 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:45:56 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

Nor does Dave 'sneak' into this group -
he couldn't be more honest about what he does if he tried.

Ah, another person leaping to erroneous conclusions. Who accused "Dave"
of sneaking in anywhere?

Don't be a pillock, Steve. By quoting only one person in your post you're
referring to that person by default. If you meant the post to be general,
no quote was necessary.

What a silly comment, my comment makes it clear who an I referring to and
guess what, it wasn't "Dave" nor was it his alias "The Medway Handyman"
before you leap to another incorrect conclusion. I suggest that one person
and one person only might try sneaking in here as his next attack upon
decent net citizens. But it is funny to watch the lot of you leaping to the
wrong conclusion.

Even more funny to be called a ****wit by someone who couldn't find a clue
even if they were given "The Observer's Book of Clues" for Christmas.

On 2006-11-22 00:28:20 +0000, "The Medway Handyman"
said:

wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Intellectual property theft?

I'm all for fair competition, but this is unfair - in particular the
deliberate passing off by including "medway handyman" in his own site
content.

SNIP

Andy, thank you so much. I have enough info here to scare the sh*t out
of him. I owe you a pint.

Passing off is certainly defensible.

The other thing that you may want to consider is registering a Ltd
company if you haven't already registered a business name. This is
not a very expensive exercise and gives you a legal entity in case of
dispute - i.e. adds to the case. If the other character does it, you
would have a weakened position.

At the end of the day, though, you have to decide on how much time
effort and cost you want to spend on defending the name. It has
value, certainly, but recognition comes out of awareness as does
business, rather than dropping pound notes into lawyers' pockets

Steve Firth wrote:
On 21 Nov 2006 16:21:35 -0800, Andy Dingley wrote:

this "medway handyman" meta tag is not merely
similarity, it can only be clear intent to deceive. The purchase of the
Google AdWords covering "medway handyman" are also strong evidence of
this.

Hmmm, YANAL.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that the law didn't apply to those who aren't.

I can't see that



He does use "The maidstone handyman" and the use of the Google adwords
"medway handyman" is no more suspicions than the use of "kent handyman"
"maidstone handyman" etc.

As I posted, this is actually an irrelevance. Although indicative of
intent and the source of his inspiration, the question of intent simply
doesn't apply to passing off.


There's no evidence where it matters of attempts to pass off,

So where ought it to matter then, if this isn't it?

The deliberate indexing of the "kent handyman" site under terms
relevant to the pre-existing medway handyman can be demonstrated to
divert search traffic, and the beneficial placement of search result
listings, away from the medway handyman site. This is likely to injure
the ongoing goodwill of the medway handyman site and business.


I think a
lawyer would struggle to make a case that key words inserted where a user
cannot see them without some effort is an attempt to "pass off".

It's not a question of "misleading a user", it's legally a question of
likely damage to goodwill by diversion of custom, and search engines
are clearly part of that in today's business climate. As you
thankfully point out, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not up to date on legal
precedents and whether any such case has already been decided. But
within the framework of decisions to date and their ready adoption of
new technologies and business practices as they arose, there is no
basis to say that search engines would be ruled an irrelevance.

nightjar nightjar@ wrote:

He is higher on sponsored links, but I've not found those to be worth
spending a lot of money on. A lot of people simply ignore them as
advertising.

Indeed myself included, but enough people must value them to get pouring
money into google at the rate they do!

I wonder if these are "pay per click" sponsored links... Just as well we
have not all clicked on the google link, it might use up all his adwords
budget.



--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On 21 Nov 2006 17:53:08 -0800, Andy Dingley wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
On 21 Nov 2006 16:21:35 -0800, Andy Dingley wrote:

this "medway handyman" meta tag is not merely
similarity, it can only be clear intent to deceive. The purchase of the
Google AdWords covering "medway handyman" are also strong evidence of
this.

Hmmm, YANAL.

Sorry, I wasn't aware that the law didn't apply to those who aren't.

I didn't make any such ludicrous claim. The law applies to you, me and to
anyone else who has not completed a law degree. However an opinion from you
is no more authoritative than an opinion from any other non lawyer.


I can't see that



He does use "The maidstone handyman" and the use of the Google adwords
"medway handyman" is no more suspicions than the use of "kent handyman"
"maidstone handyman" etc.

As I posted, this is actually an irrelevance. Although indicative of
intent and the source of his inspiration, the question of intent simply
doesn't apply to passing off.

I didn't comment on intent, I commented on the suspicion (of passing off).
He may be passing off, but I don't see that putting "the medway handyman"
into search data is an attempt to pass off as "the medway handyman", and as
I pointed out he has covered many bases.

There's no evidence where it matters of attempts to pass off,

So where ought it to matter then, if this isn't it?

It would matter a great deal more if he had made an attempt in the
displayable HTML code to pass himself off as The Medway Handyman.

The deliberate indexing of the "kent handyman" site under terms
relevant to the pre-existing medway handyman can be demonstrated to
divert search traffic, and the beneficial placement of search result
listings, away from the medway handyman site.

Really? I don't agree with you, I don't see that it follows that is the
effect at all. Indeed, the first listed site on a search for "Medway
Handyman" remains "Dave"'s site. So it's not clear cut at all that search
traffic is being diverted.

This is likely to injure
the ongoing goodwill of the medway handyman site and business.

If it can be demonstrated that this is happening then that would be true.
However it doesn't appear to be happening quite as you describe.

I think a lawyer would struggle to make a case that key words inserted
where a user cannot see them without some effort is an attempt to "pass
off".

It's not a question of "misleading a user",

Nor did I say it was. You are forgetting this point:

c) to prospective customers or ultimate consumers of the defendant's
goods or services;

There's a need to prove that the passing off is to prospective customers or
to ultimate consumers. The use of the search term in a form that is not
displayed to prospective customers or ultimate consumers may weaken that
test, especially if as has happened the use of the term does not put the
offending website into prominence.

it's legally a question of likely damage to goodwill by diversion of
custom, and search engines are clearly part of that in today's business
climate.

Can you cite a precedent that supports your view? That is, can you cite a
precedent that the use of terms in metadata tags that contain terms used by
another business may be regarded as passing off? I can't think of a case,
but then I don't do this sort of work. The law practice for which I
sometimes work does do such things and I certainly think that if they or
another practice of substance in this field were to represent the website
owner in question that matters would not be as cut and dried as you imply.

As you thankfully point out, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not up to date on
legal precedents and whether any such case has already been decided.

Sorry missed this until now, so we can both agree that it's more in the
balance than you indicated in your first reply?

But within the framework of decisions to date and their ready adoption of
new technologies and business practices as they arose, there is no basis
to say that search engines would be ruled an irrelevance.

Or to say that they would automatically be ruled as relevant. Dave may have
a case, he may have the means to pursue it. He may be able to intimidate
the thicky setting up the website with suitable jargon that makes him sound
knowledgeable. But if the person decides not to throw up his hands and say
"it's a fair cop" than Dave may well have to dig into his pocket and get
expert opinion and may be looking at expensive litigation.

If that happens I don't see it being clear cut at all. I would guess that
"The Medway Handyman" is not a registered trademark, nor yet is it the name
of a Limited Company, nor I would guess has he even taken the precaution of
putting his trading name or the copyright works on his website into escrow
in some form, such as the sending of witnessed copies by registered post.

I'm not saying that your input is not valuable, I am however saying that it
was IMO more emphatic than is warranted by the facts in this instance.
Daves claim on the name is, I suspect, weaker than he thinks. The
offender's use of the terms is not as clear cut an attempt at passing off
as you make out, particularly given how it was done, and more importantly
to whom (or rather what) it was done.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:12:23 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

The Medway Handyman is my registered business name.

Registered with whom?

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:26:18 UTC, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:54:54 UTC, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

(etc.)

He claims to be a non-trading individual. I've just put in a complaint
to Nominet. Anyone else want to add weight to it?

He is trading because he appers in YP.

Is it Nominet that I complain to?

Yes...but no need to involve you. Two of us have already done it!

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

"John Rumm" wrote in message
...
nightjar nightjar@ wrote:

He is higher on sponsored links, but I've not found those to be worth
spending a lot of money on. A lot of people simply ignore them as
advertising.

Indeed myself included, but enough people must value them to get pouring
money into google at the rate they do!

It depends on the business you are in. I found that, at 20p per click, it
cost me at least £8 to get a conversion - one slow week conversions cost me
£50 each - and, for that to pay, it had to produce repeat customers, which I
had no way of checking. A chap I knew who sold marine gear was happy to pay
for Google Adwords, as the profit on one sale would more than pay for the
conversion costs.

Colin Bignell

The message
from "The Medway Handyman" contains
these words:

Only the fact that you are a proven ****wit really.

Just shove him in the KF with Drivel.

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

The message
from Andy Hall contains these words:

Passing off is certainly defensible.

Don't you mean indefensible?

--
Skipweasel
Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain.

nightjar nightjar@ wrote:

It depends on the business you are in. I found that, at 20p per click, it
cost me at least £8 to get a conversion - one slow week conversions cost me
£50 each - and, for that to pay, it had to produce repeat customers, which I
had no way of checking. A chap I knew who sold marine gear was happy to pay
for Google Adwords, as the profit on one sale would more than pay for the
conversion costs.

Precisely - it works extremely well for some businesses, and not at all
for others. Some of our clients spend huge amounts of money on Adwords
per day, which is more than recouped in sales revenue.


--
Grunff

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
k...
"The Medway Handyman" wrote in
message ...
Just got the new Yellow Pages and looked under Handyman to check the
competition. Amazed to find www.kent-handyman.co.uk who appears to
have stolen his wording directly from my web site!

So far as I can see, most of the site is entirely different. There
are some similarities of wording on the pricing page, but they are
not identical and there must be a limited number of ways of saying we
are not VAT registered and don't charge you VAT.

He has even stolen my price structure!

Him: £35 first hour £20 per hour after, in some areas. £38 and £28 in
others.
You: £30 for first and subsequent hours.

Not just that, but the "Half Day (pre booked) and the Full Day (pre
booked) are identical. He also uses all the phrases I do.

My point is that, contrary to what you claim, his prices structure and his
main prices - I would exepct most jobs to be fairly short ones, subject to
hourly rates - are different from yours. You charge the same hourly rate
whatever, while he starts out dearer, but works out cheaper for 2-3 hour
jobs.

Given the similar nature of the work you do, I would expect you both to have
to convey similar information about your pricing. His wording is slightly
different from yours, so there is no evidence of plagarism.

Not only that, he uses the phrase The Medway Handyman in his meta
tags.

Only Inktomi even looks at those any more. If you did get him to
change that, he could still justifiably put 'Medway, handyman' in the
tags and have much the same effect.

He does that as well, but The Medway Handyman is my registered business
name. What would happen if I put 'screwfix' in my meta tags?

It wouldn't bring you any more business, which is surely the point. Meta
tags are so little used these days that I don't even bother to set them up
on new pages.

As I said earlier, I don't see any real evidence of that. From a
commercial point of view, I would be more worried about the fact that
his site looks more professional.

It does? How about his home page?

"We Specialists (sic) in work involving carpentry (no capitalisation),
plumbing (no capitalisation), Electrics (capitalised), flat pack assembly
(no capitalisation), Home Improvements (capitalised), mobile welding (no
capitalisation)".

Professional??????????????

He has no grasp of basic English grammar !!!!!!!!!

You seem to have no grasp of basic marketing. Obvious spelling or
grammatical errors (although I don't class erratic capitalisation in that -
few people have ever been taught any rules about it) are an excellent way to
get people to contact you. People love to tell you that you have got
something wrong. Once they are in contact, you can start selling to them.
However, my point was that your site looks as though it was produced from a
Microsoft Page Maker template, while his looks as though it was designed by
a professional - it is more attractive to the eye.

Colin Bignell

wrote in message
oups.com...
....
It's not a question of "misleading a user", it's legally a question of
likely damage to goodwill by diversion of custom, and search engines
are clearly part of that in today's business climate...

However, as meta tags are virtually worthless - only one of the less
important search engines even looks at them - it would be difficult to
support a claim that using a phrase in them is likely to divert business.

Colin Bignell

Colin Bignell wrote;
As I said earlier, I don't see any real evidence of that. From a
commercial point of view, I would be more worried about the fact
that his site looks more professional.

It does? How about his home page?

"We Specialists (sic) in work involving carpentry (no
capitalisation), plumbing (no capitalisation), Electrics
(capitalised), flat pack assembly (no capitalisation), Home
Improvements (capitalised), mobile welding (no capitalisation)".

Professional??????????????

He has no grasp of basic English grammar !!!!!!!!!

You seem to have no grasp of basic marketing. Obvious spelling or
grammatical errors (although I don't class erratic capitalisation in
that - few people have ever been taught any rules about it) are an
excellent way to get people to contact you. People love to tell you
that you have got something wrong. Once they are in contact, you can
start selling to them.

What? A marketing ploy based on incorrect spelling? Are you having a
laugh?


However, my point was that your site looks as
though it was produced from a Microsoft Page Maker template, while
his looks as though it was designed by a professional - it is more
attractive to the eye.

It was designed with Frontpage. Like many 'web snobs' you assume that the
public gives a toss or even knows. I get lots of compliments about how
friendly & easy to use the site is. They don't care or realise how it was
made, as long as it tells them what they want to know.

If I pick up a brochure on a product I don't give a toss what type of
machine printed it or what make of ink was used. I simply want the
content - not the vehicle.


--
Dave
The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk
01634 717930
07850 597257

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 09:06:29 GMT, The Medway Handyman wrote:

snip

What? A marketing ploy based on incorrect spelling? Are you having a
laugh?

A very commonly used ploy. A previous landlord of a pub - now sadly closed,
but that's another story - in our village (on the Norfolk Broads) used to
circulate fliers to boating holidaymakers with a couple of spelling
mistakes, he reckoned he'd get at least two or three comments a week about
it.

May not seem a lot, but as the pub was a good five minute walk away from
the river and there are two others right on the riverside, it was obviously
attracting some attention.

--
the dot wanderer at tesco dot net

On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:54:54 UTC, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Just got the new Yellow Pages and looked under Handyman to check the
competition. Amazed to find www.kent-handyman.co.uk who appears to have
stolen his wording directly from my web site!

He has even stolen my price structure! Not only that, he uses the phrase
The Medway Handyman in his meta tags.

Reply from Nominet, just now:

"Thank you for your email.

Nominet provide the option to opt out of the WHOIS search facility.
However, this is only for registrants who are living individuals who
are
not using their domain name in the course of a business, trade or
profession, ie consumers.

After checking the website for the kent-handyman.co.uk domain name it
appears that the website is being used in the course of business and/or
trade. In light of this we have opted the registrant into the whois. You

can now view their contact address information via our whois at
http://www.nominet.org.uk/. "
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

Steve Firth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:25:50 GMT, . wrote:

Steve Firth wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 23:04:26 +0000, Grunff wrote:

Why does it offend you so much
in the context of the building trade?

It doesn't, but the group title is d-i-y not d-i-f-s-e-a-g-p-f-i. If he
wants a self help group for building professionals then unnm is - thataway
and he can get a vote for the group creation.

correct time of night, agressive and abusive seems to be an accurate
description of demeanour towards other posters ...

Except it's not, in fact to describe that post as either abusive or
aggressive is a lie.

again, forwards, only this time in english, please.

HAD A DRINK ?

I see you still can't help yourself from libelling others. Is that why you
cower behind an alias? I suppose the dot is an indication of the size of
your testicles.

asking a question isn't libel but if you'd like a pop, steeevie boy,
knock yourself out. you'll make as much a **** of yourself as that
other well known abusive troll who 'took it to law' LOL

Steve Firth wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:50:25 +0000 (GMT), Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

This group would be very much worse off without the pros that contribute
to it. The *true* pros, obviously.

K3WL where can a get a blow job for £5?

is your mum not doing a BOGOF this week ?

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
This group would be very much worse off without the pros that
contribute to it. The *true* pros, obviously.

K3WL where can a get a blow job for £5?

I'd have thought you'd have known.

--
*Remember not to forget that which you do not need to know.*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Steve Firth wrote:
Don't be a pillock, Steve. By quoting only one person in your post
you're referring to that person by default. If you meant the post to
be general, no quote was necessary.

What a silly comment, my comment makes it clear who an I referring to and
guess what, it wasn't "Dave" nor was it his alias "The Medway Handyman"
before you leap to another incorrect conclusion.

Err, it *didn't* make it clear at all. Otherwise there would have been no
adverse reaction to it.

You've been around long enough to know that if you selectively quote then
add a comment everyone will believe it's that quote your commenting on. So
stop wriggling.

--
*Everybody lies, but it doesn't matter since nobody listens*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

nightjar wrote:

However, as meta tags are virtually worthless

Meta tags aren't "virtually worthless", they're of small worth.

For the legal issue here, then that's a significant difference.
Modifying meta tags in this way shows clear intent, but as already
agreed, intent isn't material. We're concerned with likely damage and
if even one search engine might be misled here, then we've proven
_some_ diversion of search traffic and that's as much as we need.

Secondly, they appear to have purchased the relevant Google adwords for
Medway handyman. Again, although this intent is irrelevant, they don't
appear to have purchased a likely set for "rochester, chatham" etc.

nightjar nightjar@ wrote:

It wouldn't bring you any more business, which is surely the point. Meta
tags are so little used these days that I don't even bother to set them up
on new pages.

I have found it is still worth setting the "description" tag since lots
of engines will display the content of that on search results.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 22:07:42 UTC, "SJP"
wrote:

He has even stolen my price structure! Not only that, he uses the phrase
The Medway Handyman in his meta tags.

Domain name:
kent-handyman.co.uk

Registrant:
derek dowding

Registrant type:
UK Individual

Registrant's address:
The registrant is a non-trading individual who has opted to have
their
address omitted from the WHOIS service.

OK, seriously...email Nominet and complain that he's trading and they'll
make him disclose his address sharpish. Might take the wind out of his
sails a bit, and it shouldn't be allowed anyway.

This info is also in the public domain:

Kent Handyman Services
Handyman
Contact Derek Dowding
Call 08708031586 or 07793232039

Telephone: 08708031586
Mobile: 07793232039
Address: Derek Dowding
Kent Handyman Services
16 Grove Road
Chatham
Kent
ME4 5HS

See
http://www.askyourneighbour.co.uk/la...d=0&uid=116583

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t

Bob Eager wrote:
On Tue, 21 Nov 2006 20:54:54 UTC, "The Medway Handyman"
wrote:

Just got the new Yellow Pages and looked under Handyman to check the
competition. Amazed to find www.kent-handyman.co.uk who appears to have
stolen his wording directly from my web site!

He has even stolen my price structure! Not only that, he uses the phrase
The Medway Handyman in his meta tags.

Reply from Nominet, just now:

"Thank you for your email.

Nominet provide the option to opt out of the WHOIS search facility.
However, this is only for registrants who are living individuals who
are
not using their domain name in the course of a business, trade or
profession, ie consumers.

After checking the website for the kent-handyman.co.uk domain name it
appears that the website is being used in the course of business and/or
trade. In light of this we have opted the registrant into the whois. You

can now view their contact address information via our whois at
http://www.nominet.org.uk/. "

So they have.
http://www.askyourneighbour.co.uk/la...d=0&uid=116583
is indeed confirmed as current by a whois query:

whois kent-handyman.co.uk

Domain name:
kent-handyman.co.uk

Registrant:
derek dowding

Registrant type:
Not supplied

Registrant's address:
16 grove road
chatham
kent
kent
ME4 5HS
United Kingdom

Registrant's agent:
Dollamore Ltd t/a StreamlineNet [Tag = STREAMLINENET]
URL: http://www.streamline.net

Relevant dates:
Registered on: 01-Aug-2006
Renewal date: 01-Aug-2008
Last updated: 22-Nov-2006

Registration status:
Registered until renewal date.

Name servers:
ns1.streamlinedns.co.uk
ns2.streamlinedns.co.uk

WHOIS lookup made at 11:33:36 22-Nov-2006

--
Michael
m r o z a t u k g a t e w a y d o t n e t

On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 11:34:53 UTC, Michael Rozdoba
wrote:

So they have.
http://www.askyourneighbour.co.uk/la...d=0&uid=116583
is indeed confirmed as current by a whois query:

Well, I did check before I posted...!
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
Avenue Supplies, http://avenuesupplies.co.uk

Steve Firth wrote:

So where ought it to matter then, if this isn't it?

It would matter a great deal more if he had made an attempt in the
displayable HTML code to pass himself off as The Medway Handyman.

There is a need to prove the case, not to prove it very much indeed.

;
There's a need to prove that the passing off is to prospective customers or
to ultimate consumers. The use of the search term in a form that is not
displayed to prospective customers or ultimate consumers may weaken that
test, especially if as has happened the use of the term does not put the
offending website into prominence.

It does make the offending site prominent though (especially the use od
AdWords), even if not the only prominent site. No one is claiming that
it will absorb _all_ traffic, it merely needs to divert a fraction to
be a passing off.


As you thankfully point out, I'm not a lawyer. I'm not up to date on
legal precedents and whether any such case has already been decided.

Sorry missed this until now, so we can both agree that it's more in the
balance than you indicated in your first reply?

No, not at all. The issue of whether search engines are recognised by
UK case law as representing "goodwill" is an interesting one, but my
doubt is to whether this has already been settled or not, not how it
will eventually be settled. To claim that they aren't would be a
travesty.

But if the person decides not to throw up his hands and say
"it's a fair cop" than Dave may well have to dig into his pocket and get
expert opinion and may be looking at expensive litigation.

Indeed -- which is why it's useful to approach them first in a low-cost
manner, as this can be done (carefully) in a manner that's not
prejudicial to any final court outcome, where it unfortunately to go
that far.


Daves claim on the name is, I suspect, weaker than he thinks.

I don't believe he has any defensible claim on the name whatsoever
(and he might like to think about making some for the future). However
this isn't necessary for the action we're talking about here.

Steve Firth wrote:
On Wed, 22 Nov 2006 00:36:44 GMT, Lobster wrote:

The Medway Handyman wrote:
wrote:
The Medway Handyman wrote:

Intellectual property theft?
I'm all for fair competition, but this is unfair - in particular the
deliberate passing off by including "medway handyman" in his own site
content.
Dave, have you seen this one? No 1 hit when you google for "Medway
Handyman":

Umm that's not passing off, nor is it the No. 1 hit. It's simply a
sponsored link that appears when you put in the keywords "medway" and
"handyman".

Well yesterday the site had the words "MEDWAY HANDYMAN" displayed in
large yellow letters at the top of the home page. Seems to have
dissappeared today: has Dave been on the case?? ;-)

David

In article ,
nightjar nightjar@insert my surname here.uk.com wrote:
From a commercial point of view, I would be more worried about the
fact that his site looks more professional.

As ever a matter of taste. But it doesn't load properly here.

--
*Those who live by the sword get shot by those who don't*

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.