In yet another win for the good guys, an auDRP complaint on the domain name Event-X.com.au was successfully defended for the Respondent by Nicole Murdoch of Eaglegate Lawyers. Congratulations to you and your client.
🔶 The Complainant was EventXtra Limited from Hong Kong (represented by Benny Kong & Tsai).
🔶 The Respondent was the Queensland based events company Event X Pty Ltd.
🔶 Panelists: Matthew Kennedy (Presiding); Douglas Clark; Warwick Rothnie.
🔶 Issues considered included Complainant’s having filed certain trademarks for the EVENTX mark.
These are the “money quotes” from the Panelist’s decision on the 20th November, 2021.
"Based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, the Panel finds that the Respondent has been making a bona fide use of the disputed domain name and a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with an offering of services within the terms of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the auDRP." "The Panel has already found that the Complainant’s evidence is weak, both in the Complaint and in its supplementary filing. The Complainant itself should have appreciated this after reviewing the Respondent’s name and website."
Other Points
🔶 I can’t understand why a lot of panelists allow supplementary filings by Complainants? This Complainant had legal representation. They see the response from the Respondent, and then try and counter anything they may have missed or not given enough attention to. It is effectively giving them two bites at the cherry in my opinion.
🔶 RDNH (Reverse Domain Name Hijacking) was applied for but turned down. The Panelists determined that the Complaint was not brought in bad faith, or that it constituted an abuse of the administrative proceeding.
Why are some panelists still too scared to make a RDNH Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ruling also? Come on stand up and call them out.
The respondent won this case but still wastes $10,000, time and resources just to keep what they already owned rightfully. How is this fair and just process?
This was an RDNH when taken into consideration of all facts, case law, previous auDRP, WIPO decisions.
Here are 600 RDNH decisions ALL panelists need to read and appreciate before they make their final decisions in a dispute.
https://www.dndisputes.com/case/decision/rdnh/
Wrong panellists.
Thank you Ned. Much appreciated.
Hi Nicole,
Do you think it should have been ruled as an RDNH.
Who chose those panelists as part of the extra paid 3 panelist process?
This is a classic RDNH to abuse process against a legitimate registrant.
Yes we believe it was a classic RDNH case. The facts are well set out in the decision but there was no basis to claim our client had not legitimate entitlement or that the domain was used or registered in bad faith.
Note there is an eventx.com.au domain name they didn’t go after. I can’t comment more on that issue.
We choose one panelist, the Complainant chose the other and WIPO chose the presiding.
A trademark does not guarantee you rights in a domain name. It’s not what you got, it’s how you use it.
Great work Nicole and Eaglegate Lawyers! Another lesson learned.