How Dorset Police attempted to take over this web site -- and failed

Gerry Coulter registered and in December 2000 and the fact he had registered these two Internet domains was made known to Superintendent Geoffrey Brazier of Dorset Police shortly afterwards.

Six months or so later, in July 2001, Dorset Police in the shape of Superintendent Geoffrey Brazier invoked the Internet Domain Name Dispute procedure in an attempt to take over this web site and apparently impose unlawful censorship contrary to the Human Rights Act 1998 and Article 10(1) of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

The Internet Domain Dispute Authorities

From the ICANN website ( "The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the non-profit corporation that was formed to assume responsibility for the IP address space allocation, protocol parameter assignment, domain name system management, and root server system management functions previously performed under U.S. Government contract by IANA and other entities."

Domain name disputes for .com & .net and other Internet Top-Level Domains are handled by ICANN's selected administrative-dispute-resolution service providers such as eResolution by conducting a quasi-judicial procedure in compliance with ICANN policy and ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (URDP). See below.

The Rules

The ICANN Rules can be found here: (
or here: (

The Policy (URDP)

The ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Policy (URDP) can be found here:

What a complainant has to prove to win

The URDP says there are three essential elements, all of which have to be proved for a complaint to succeed:
"(i) your domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; and"
"(ii) you have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and"
"(iii) your domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith."
"In the administrative proceeding, the complainant must prove that each of these three elements are present."

The basis of Dorset Police's Complaint

Full Copy of document received by email from the resolution authorities: (This is a 54k *.doc file)

Trademark Issues

Dorset Police said: "Dorset Police is a properly constituted Police Service in England, UK."

They say nothing about any rights, trademark or otherwise, to the words "Dorset Police" which are generic. They supply no evidence or proof of any registered trademarks or servicemarks or even common-law trademarks or servicemarks in the name of "Dorset Police" or in any other name.

Copy or Similarity

Dorset Police said: "The disputed domain names are strikingly similar to the complainant's organisational name and official domain, to which the complainant has rights."

So what ? Many domain names are "strikingly similar". For example,,,,,, and are all registered by different people and are "strikingly similar". The same applies to the word "Weymouth" and to a zillion other words that are registered as Internet domains.

What differentiates one web site from another is the web site content. It is nonsense to suggest anybody could be confused between and by visiting the web sites because the content is totally different.


Dorset Police said: "The respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the name 'Dorset Police'. He does have a long standing grievance with Dorset Police over an unsubstantiated complaint he made regarding an investigation undertaken by the police."

"The respondent became a regular correspondent with the police over this grievance and subsequently issued proceedings against the Chief Constable. These proceedings were unsuccessful and the respondent was described by the Judge as 'vexatious'. The respondent was ordered to pay the Chief Constable's costs which are still outstanding."

Bad Faith

Dorset Police said: "The respondent has informed the complainant that he has purchased these domain names and linked them to a web site known as 'VOMIT' (this stands for Victims of Masonic Ill Treatment and can be found at ). [Note how Dorset Police cannot bring themselves to write the words ""] This site alleges masonic conspiracies within the police and other government organisations. It is also used to post offensive and personal attacks on individual members of these organisations."

"The respondent has indicated to the complainant that his motivation in purchasing the two domain names has been to cause as much disruption as possible to the complainant in terms of resources. The respondent has suggested payment in return for the names, but it is apparent that he is seeking a very considerable sum (£100,000)."

What Dorset Police wanted ("The Remedy")

Dorset Police said they wanted and to be "transferred to complainant"

Insufficient Time -- How Gerry Coulter tried to get a "Fair Hearing"

Gerry Coulter became aware of the domain complaint by Dorset Police during the last week in July 2001. He had to make a response to Dorset Police and eResolution by the 14th August 2001. In view of Dorset Police's submissions, and in particular their remarks about Gerry Coulter's past legal encounters with them, Gerry Coulter had to do some research through documents held by his solicitors in London and his solicitor was on holiday.

Clearly, in these circumstances, there was not sufficient time for Gerry Coulter to prepare his response and thereby get a "fair hearing".

David Husband appointed "Domain Complaint Manager"

In view of the various difficulties involved and the time constraints, Gerry Coulter appointed David Husband to act as "Domain Complaint Manager" to conduct the response to Dorset Police's complaint. On behalf of Gerry Coulter, David Husband applied for a response postponement to eResolution and they put his request to Supt. Brazier of Dorset Police.

Gerry Coulter's request for more time is here:

Dorset Police's response is here:

Gerry Coulter's response

By this time, David Husband had engaged and instructed a specialist firm of Internet Attorney's in Washington (See here) and they filed Gerry Coulter's response.

Full Copy of document submitted by email to the resolution authorities:
(This is a 487k *.rtf file, zipped up)

This part is Gerry Coulter's response to Dorset Police's complaint of "copy or similarity"

This part is Gerry Coulter's response to Dorset Police's complaint of "illegitimacy"

This part is Gerry Coulter's response to Dorset Police's complaint of "bad faith"

Appointment of Panelist (Arbitrator)


From: Clerk's Office []

Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2001 8:00 PM

To: ''; '';

''; 'Husband, David'

Subject: AF-942/

In accordance with ICANN Rule 6(f), please be informed that the

above-mentioned file has been sent to the panelist Mr. Mike Rodenbaugh

yesterday and that a decision should be handed down by 

September 19, 2001.


This is what eResolution has to say about Mr Rodenbaugh:

Mike Rodenbaugh
Corporate Counsel, Yahoo! Inc.
Sunnyvale, CA, California, USA

Fields of Expertise: trademark and domain name legal issues.

Dorset Police's Arrogant Response

Gerry Coulter's expertly researched and powerfully argued submission must have clearly caught Dorset Police's Supt.Brazier by surprise, as he sent this arrogant email in response:


From: Michael Knight [] 

Sent: Wednesday, September 12, 2001 10:47 AM

To: eresolution

Cc: Sturgeon Associates; G Coulter

Subject: Dispute Reference AF-942 

Dispute Reference AF-942 - &

Following the receipt of the submissions of the respondent:

In relation to:

(1) Offers to sell the domain name back to us

(2) The recent change to the website to which the domain name is linked

(3) Further information relating to web pages to which the new site is attached

we have further submissions to make.

These will be made by the close of business (British Summer Time) on 

Monday 17th September 2001 and we will be requesting that the appointed panelist, 

Mr Rodenbaugh, accepts them.


G Brazier


Dorset Police Headquarters


There is no provision in the URDP for a complainant to make a second submission. They are assumed to have properly researched and prepared their case in the first place. In the instance of Dorset Police's complaint, they have had about six months to research and prepare their complaint.

Of particular note is the arrogant manner that Supt.Brazier of Dorset Police uses. Who do these people think they are ? What planet are they on ?

Supt.Brazer of Dorset Police is admonished by eResolution


From: Clerk's Office 

To: Geoff Brazier <>

Cc: , 

Subject: AF-942/

Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2001 09:33:22 -0400

Dear Sir,

Would you be kind enough to note that you should not write directly to the


Indeed, according the ICANN rules section 8 Communication Between Parties

and the Panel

"No Party or anyone acting on its behalf may have any unilateral

communication with the Panel. All communications between a Party and the

Panel or the Provider shall be made to a case administrator appointed by the

Provider in the manner prescribed in the Provider's Supplemental Rules."


Corinne Meyer

Case Administrator/Administrateur de dossiers

eResolution - Integrity online

4200, boul. Saint-Laurent

Bureau 711

Montréal (Québec)

H2W 2R2 Canada

tel: (514) 908-2900

fax: (514) 908-2901 


Perhaps Supt.Brazier's arrogance was niggling eResolution a wee bit !

Dorset Police's 2nd Desperate Attempt


From: Geoff Brazier [] 

Sent: Monday, September 17, 2001 11:25 AM



Subject: Dispute Reference AF-942

Please find herewith document attachments which together are the additional 

submission from Dorset Police regarding the above dispute reference.  As you 

will be aware, your agreed deadline for accepting their submission is today.

1. The pdf file titled "Further Submissions of Dorset Police" is the main text 

of my submission.

2.The pdf file titled "Vomit Sites" is a selection of Vomit sites published on 

the Internet which have sections highlighted in blue text as described in the 


3.The pdf file titled "scanned copy of faxed letter" is a scan of the original fax 

received by me from Mr Coulter of a letter he had sent to Vomit.

4. The pdf file titled "Transcript of letter from Mr Coulter" has been produced 

as the original document (Item 3 above) is of poor legible quality.

G Brazier


Dorset Police Headquarters


These are the files referenced above:

(1) Further Submissions of Dorset Police

(2) Vomit Sites (

(3) Scanned Copy of Faxed Letter

(4) Transcript of letter from Mr Coulter

Gerry Coulter's 2nd Response

Full Copy of document submitted by email to the resolution authorities:

This part is Gerry Coulter's objection to Dorset Police's 2nd submission

This part is Gerry Coulter's response to Dorset Police's 2nd submission

How Dorset Police made ridiculous allegations to an independent tribunal

Coming Soon - Watch this space !!

Dorset Police's Absurd Claim

Coming Soon - Watch this space !!

How Dorset Police failed to produce any evidence or proof to support their allegations

Coming Soon - Watch this space !!

How Dorset Police breached confidentiality

Coming Soon - Watch this space !!

Did Dorset Police & Supt Geoff Brazier commit Perjury ?

Click Here to View!

How Dorset Police were arrogant and incompetent

Coming Soon - Watch this space !!

The Arbitration Panel & the Ruling

Coming Soon - Watch this space !!

How much public money has Dorset Police wasted ?

Coming Soon - Watch this space !!

Dorset Police Superintendent Geoffrey Brazier

Coming Soon - Watch this space !!

Gerry Coulter's Washington Attorney

Coming Soon - Watch this space !!


Coming Soon - Watch this space !!

This Website is published by Gerry Coulter
in the Public Interest and
Without Malice

Links to third party web sites.
This web site contains links to other web sites operated by parties who are wholly separate from this web site. Links to all third party sites are identifiable because clicking on them will launch new browser windows displaying the third party's web site URLs. Such links are provided for your convenience and reference only and we cannot be held responsible in any way for the content, operation or availability of such web sites nor do we necessarily agree with the contents of such sites.

This web site is published under the protection of the Human Rights Act 1998
and Article 10(1) of the
European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms