Nominet DRS 28377 - Part 1 - The Background

There will be a series of blog posts examining the recent decision published by Nominet Experts in DRS 28377. This first post sets out the background to the matter.

I would welcome input from other DRS Experts, as well as those more broadly involved in the domain name dispute community. To support that discussion, I will be publishing the submissions I made throughout the DRS process from start to finish. The only exception will be certain email correspondence with Bona Vacantia and GoDaddy, as these involved third parties and it would not be appropriate to make them public without consent.

For transparency, I was the individual behind the Complaint submitted on behalf of Quick Loans Ltd. When I refer to “the Complainant”, I am referring to my own actions and decisions in that capacity.

I may occasionally use “I”, “we”, or “the Complainant” interchangeably, but I take full responsibility for everything that was submitted.

This opening post is unlikely to be of interest to most readers. However, it is necessary to establish the foundation - without it, the later analysis will lack proper context. One of the issues with the current public narrative around this case is precisely that: a lack of context.

Before assessing the outcome - particularly the finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH) - it is important to understand what I knew at each stage.

When I submitted the DRS, I did not know the identity of the underlying registrant. The WHOIS data was initially blank, later showed GoDaddy Privacy, and only subsequently identified CashEuroNet UK, LLC.

The Complaint was therefore structured in the standard way used where the registrant is unknown:

• Relying on the Complainant’s rights
• and generalised allegations about the Respondent due to the absence of identifiable information.

Unlike the first DRS in 2023, no evidence of confusion was included in this Complaint. That is because no such evidence existed in relation to the .uk domain at the time.

In the 2023 proceedings, there was significant evidence of confusion between QuickLoans.co.uk and QuickQuid.co.uk, which arose in a different factual context. This case concerned a separate domain (quickquid.uk), with an unknown registrant and no identifiable interaction with the Complainant’s business.

The evidence relied upon in this Complaint was therefore different. It was not based on demonstrated instances of confusion, but on the similarity of the names and the foreseeable risk of confusion in a regulated financial-services context.

My position was straightforward. My company held rights in a distinctive name, “QuickQuid”. I could not identify any legitimate reason for a third party to still be holding the matching .uk domain. In the absence of any response or explanation, the relevant provisions of the Policy (including paragraphs 5.1.1.2 and 5.1.1.3, albeit misnumbered in the original Complaint as 5.1.2 and 5.1.3 respectively. The numbering was wrong, the pleading in words was correct) were intended to apply.

At the time, the identity of the registrant was unknown. There were a number of plausible possibilities, including the respondent being the former administrators Grant Thornton (They still hold the Facebook Group for QQ and won't release it), a trade mark agent, a web developer, or another third party connected to the historical operation of the QuickQuid brand. It was also possible that the registrant remained CashEuroNet UK LLC and therefore I believed at the time submission - Bona Vacantia Department.

In the absence of clear registrant information, the Complaint was framed on the basis of those uncertainties.

If a Respondent had come forward with a credible and legitimate explanation for holding the domain, I would have had the option to withdraw the Complaint at that stage.

That was the framework within which the Complaint was brought.

The Complaint advanced the following key points:

• The Complainant had established Rights in the name “QuickQuid” through prior use, regulatory activity, and a previous DRS decision recognising those rights
• The business dates back to 2009 and has operated continuously under regulatory oversight, supporting the existence of goodwill
• The “QuickQuid” brand had been actively rebuilt following acquisition of the .co.uk domain
• “QuickQuid” had been added as an FCA-authorised trading name
• A UK trade mark application had been accepted by the UKIPO (later subject to third-party opposition)
• The disputed domain name (quickquid.uk) is identical in all material respects to the Complainant’s mark
• There was no identifiable legitimate use or regulatory presence connected to the Respondent
• The domain was passively held with no active use
• Passive holding of an identical financial-services name creates a foreseeable risk of consumer confusion
• The registration prevented the Complainant from securing a corresponding domain and risked disruption to its business

The first Expert found that:

• The Complaint was “weak” and “incomplete and misleading”
• The Complainant had no registered trade mark, only a pending application subject to opposition
• There was insufficient evidence of goodwill or supporting material
• The Complainant “knew, or must have known” that the 2014 registration predated its existence
• The Complaint was characterised as advancing a “sole argument” relating to lack of legitimate use
• The Respondent (CashEuroNet) had a legitimate historical connection to the QuickQuid name
• The Complainant had previously been criticised in earlier DRS proceedings
• The Complainant was not entitled to the domain simply because the Respondent had entered administration

Here I pointed out the issues with the First Expert's Conclusions:

• On Rights: I relied on website evidence and FCA registration, and argued that the threshold for Rights had been set too high and conflated with other elements of the Policy
• On goodwill: I accept that supporting evidence was not included in the original Complaint. That was my responsibility. However, I argued that an omission of evidence is not the same as misleading conduct or bad faith
• On the “sole argument” point: I argued that the Complaint had been mischaracterised, as it also relied on separate grounds under paragraphs 5.1.1.2 and 5.1.1.3 (albeit misnumbered due to a clerical error)
• On knowledge of the Respondent: I did not know the Respondent’s identity at the time of filing, and could not reasonably have known it in advance
• On chronology: I pointed out that the UK Companies House record showed CashEuroNet’s UK establishment being registered shortly after the domain, raising questions about assumptions made regarding its position at the time
• On status: I argued that the Respondent had been dissolved, not merely in administration, which is a legally distinct position
• On bona vacantia: I argued that, as a dissolved company, the domain should vest in the Crown, relying on DRS01409 (tigerbeer.co.uk)
• On conduct: I raised concerns regarding the tone of the decision, including the use of terms such as “misleading”, “must have known”, and “supernatural ability”, and whether arguments had been advanced on behalf of the absent Respondent without an opportunity to respond

There were three substantial parts to the DRS Non-Standard Submission, which were filed before the three-member Appeal Panel was appointed.

• On Rights: I relied on website evidence and FCA registration, and argued that the threshold for Rights had been set too high and conflated with other elements of the Policy
• On goodwill: I accept that supporting evidence was not included in the original Complaint. That was my responsibility. However, I argued that an omission of evidence is not the same as misleading conduct or bad faith
• On the “sole argument” point: I argued that the Complaint had been mischaracterised, as it also relied on separate grounds under paragraphs 5.1.1.2 and 5.1.1.3 (albeit misnumbered due to a clerical error)
• On knowledge of the Respondent: I did not know the Respondent’s identity at the time of filing, and could not reasonably have known it in advance
• On chronology: I pointed out that the UK Companies House record showed CashEuroNet’s UK establishment being registered shortly after the domain, raising questions about assumptions made regarding its position at the time
• On status: I argued that the Respondent had been dissolved, not merely in administration, which is a legally distinct position
• On bona vacantia: I argued that, as a dissolved company, the domain should vest in the Crown, relying on DRS01409 (tigerbeer.co.uk)
• On conduct: I raised concerns regarding the tone of the decision, including the use of terms such as “misleading”, “must have known”, and “supernatural ability”, and whether arguments had been advanced on behalf of the absent Respondent without an opportunity to respond

Points made by the 3 Expert Appeal Panel:

• Confirmed that CashEuroNet was dissolved
• Held that it remained the correct Respondent as the registered holder of the domain
• Rejected the bona vacantia argument, finding that a .uk domain is a contractual right that does not survive dissolution and must instead be cancelled under Nominet terms
• Found in my favour on Rights, confirming that the threshold is low and that Rights existed based on use since 2023
• Agreed that the domain was registered in 2014, before my business adopted the name, and therefore could not have been an abusive registration at that time
• Held that passive holding cannot succeed as a standalone ground without abusive registration
• Found that by 24 December 2025, I knew the identity of the Respondent and should have reconsidered or withdrawn the Complaint before proceeding
• Concluded that continuing the Complaint and Appeal amounted to bad faith, establishing Reverse Domain Name Hijacking

Not everyone will read this page in full, but for those who want to familiarise themselves with the matter, it provides a solid foundation to start from. As we go into the next 2 parts of this story, it will begin to make sense.

There are only two pieces of material that have not been included here - the emails to GoDaddy and the emails to Bona Vacantia. The Bona Vacantia correspondence relates to me providing evidence of the Delaware cancellation and making enquiries about the potential purchase of any assets. If Nominet/Experts want to share them, they can.