If you had a QPR domain name or handle the club wanted

[West Acton]

Perhaps. I am surprised at the amount of publicity he received in this situation, it and he are not that important surely?

Can't believe your making efforts to defend him if honest

[rhysthomsonqpr]

nothing in this world is free!

[Stanley]

and states it's all non profit

What is the "it" youre referring to, and where does it state this?

[Kirill]

Can't believe your making efforts to defend him if honest

I am not defending him in particular. In this day and age of political correctness we are increasingly expected to justify ourselves in all sorts of situations when we are actually perfectly entitled to give no account at all. I find such disrespect of privacy utterly disgusting.

[1QPRDK]

This:
QPR - Admit we could have handled the situation better, and IT & AH apologised to Mike / QPR Report.

Never miss an opportunity :-)

[DeepcutHoop]

The point is that it cost him nothing to register that name tag and states it's all non profit, so why hold it?

The club did want to use it for commercial purposes though.

[dsqpr]

Sell of course, like the club sells stuff to me.

To be fair, the name "QPR" does not belong to any fan any more than "Sainsburys" belongs to anybody who shops there.

Just to repeat a few points that have already been made:
1. The name of the web site in question is "QPRReport", not "QPR".
2. I'm sure the club could claim the name "QPR" if it wanted to - it has long been established that domain names belong to the business with the related name.
3. The person involved seems like an attention seeking drama queen. Too bad we are fulfilling his wishes.

Further to #2:
Trademark owners were noticeably upset when they realized that someone else has registered a domain name consisting of their trademark followed by “.COM”. When they tried to explain to the cybersquatters that registration of the domain name infringed their trademark rights, cybersquatters would suggest to settle the dispute by selling the domain name to the trademark owners.

The cybersquatters perfectly realized that in most cases, trademark owners would not find it reasonable to incur the expenses of a full-blown litigation to enforce their trademark rights against the bad faith registrants, and would prudently buy the domain names for a reasonable amount.

Many trademark owners were discouraged by the fact that the court practice in various jurisdictions varied and led to unexpected results.

When the number of domain name disputes was in the hundreds, it became clear that courts are not always the most appropriate venue to settle domain name disputes. Thus, in 1999 ICANN, the authority responsible for the domain name system (DNS), came up with a limited administrative procedure that was very simple, robust and relatively inexpensive, the Uniform Domain Name Resolution Policy, UDRP.

http://mincovlaw.com/overview/domains

[QprQpr]

One of the guys I worked with bought the Maserati domain name back in the 90's and made a small fortune off the back of it after negioating a deal with them. Of course everyone is in it for the money but when you hold your own club to ransom over it that's where I take issue.

[QprQpr]

QPR can apply to Twitter to get the name @qpr transferred to them if they so wish. They can claim that someone is running it when it should belong to the club. Based on what I've seen before I think they have a reasonable case to get it. If it was @barclays or @sainsburys and it was an individual the organisations in question would be within their rights to get them if someone was running the handles to promote Barclays or Sainsburys related things. Same thing for QPR.
They
QPR don't seem to have done that though. Why?

They can. Do exactly that and will definately get the twitter handle ransferred, domain names are a different kettle of fish though, they already own that. I'm pretty sure sure the guys in the media team will claim that right to the twitter name at some point. Very silly all round but the owners of that handle should be qpr and not some random.

[Sandy Flash]

The club did want to use it for commercial purposes though.

qprreport claims hes website is non profit and for the love, so why deny the club the handle?

[NW_Hoopz]

I am not defending him in particular. In this
day and age of political correctness we are increasingly expected to justify ourselves in all sorts of situations when we are actually perfectly entitled to give no account at all. I find such disrespect of privacy utterly disgusting.

I find myself agreeing with you Kiril, as you can imagine this doesn't sit comfortably with me .......


BUT being so close to Armistice day I'm sure we'll fall out again very soon

;-}

[Sandy Flash]

I find myself agreeing with you Kiril, as you can imagine this doesn't sit comfortably with me .......


BUT being so close to Armistice day I'm sure we'll fall out again very soon

;-}

That's all very well and agree, but if it was someone other than himself, he would have pages and pages of copy & paste on the subject. Now that it's hes turn we don't hear a peek, makes you laugh.

[Kirill]

I find myself agreeing with you Kiril, as you can imagine this doesn't sit comfortably with me .......


BUT being so close to Armistice day I'm sure we'll fall out again very soon

;-}

Have you been to view the poppies in the Tower moat?
Is it worth a viewing if I barely have two days in London?
I'd like to go and see for myself, but there are allegedly large crowds.

[vespa]

Have you been to view the poppies in the Tower moat?
Is it worth a viewing if I barely have two days in London?
I'd like to go and see for myself, but there are allegedly large crowds.

Go early Kirill ,well worth it

[vespa]

If i`m honest i dont know what any of this beef is all about,what i do know is the people who have majority shares/run our club,dont own QPR,
WE do , we were here long before they`d even heard of QPR ,and WE will be here long after theyve gone