Domain Disputes

I always find it interesting to look at recent auDRP decisions – and to see what Aussie domains are currently going through the process.

For those not in the know, auDRP means .au Dispute Resolution Policy. The purpose of the auDRP is to provide a cheaper, speedier alternative to litigation for the resolution of disputes between the registrant of a .au domain name and a party with competing rights in the domain name.

Pending Decisions

HRA.com.au – the complainant in this case is Harness Racing Australia. Respondent is a friend and fellow domain investor. In fact, I actually sold him this domain about 18 months ago! In my opinion, there is absolutely no way that he should lose this domain, however, he perhaps hasn’t done himself any favours with the landing page he currently has. I wish him well.

Dashing.com.au – the complainants are Dashing Pty Ltd and Dashing Print Pty Ltd. By the looks of it, they are a large Sydney based printer. The respondent is Melbourne based sole trader who runs a business called Dashing Website Solutions. According to the ABN Lookup, he has had this trading name since 2007. Accordingly, I just cannot see how the respondent could even come close to losing this domain? After all, the complainant has to succeed on all three legs:

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that in order to divest the Respondent of the disputed domain name, the Complainants must demonstrate each of the following:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a name, trade mark or service mark in which the Complainants have rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered or subsequently used in bad faith.

Not sure who is advising the complainant, but I would have thought thay have absolutely no chance with regards (ii) and (iii). This domain name is also a generic word; it has been around since 1996 (and had a few owners by the looks of it); and the respondent has been using the name legitimately.

Weebly.com.au – the complainant is the obvious one – Weebly, Inc. The respondent is rightly going to be branded as a cyber squatter. Why some people even bother registering famous brands is totally beyond me.

However, what I find interesting is that the complainant went down the auDRP route – instead of taking the cheap option of complaining to auDA. This to me would seem like a simple auDA decision?

Disclaimer