yoursolarquotes.com.au - auDRP

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

A good auDRP decision that was published today, once again a slap down to lawyers trying to use the auDRP for trade mark infringement rather than cases of cybersquatting.

As noted above, the Policy is designed to deal with clear cases of cybersquatting. If the Complainant wishes to bring proceedings against the Respondent for trademark infringement, or question the assertions and evidence of the Respondent’s conduct contained in the Response, such a proceeding is more appropriately brought in a court of competent jurisdiction. The Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

 

[Scott.L]

A good auDRP decision that was published today, once again a slap down to lawyers trying to use the auDRP for trade mark infringement rather than cases of cybersquatting.

As noted above, the Policy is designed to deal with clear cases of cybersquatting. If the Complainant wishes to bring proceedings against the Respondent for trademark infringement, or question the assertions and evidence of the Respondent’s conduct contained in the Response, such a proceeding is more appropriately brought in a court of competent jurisdiction. The Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

I'm surprised genericide didnt destroy the mark. In fact, how did such a mark get accepted by the TM office?

While the Panel accepts that there may be confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent’s businesses, such confusion may arise from the fact that the term “solar quotes” has been used broadly in the relevant market

 

[DomainNames]

A good auDRP decision that was published today, once again a slap down to lawyers trying to use the auDRP for trade mark infringement rather than cases of cybersquatting.

As noted above, the Policy is designed to deal with clear cases of cybersquatting. If the Complainant wishes to bring proceedings against the Respondent for trademark infringement, or question the assertions and evidence of the Respondent’s conduct contained in the Response, such a proceeding is more appropriately brought in a court of competent jurisdiction. The Panel finds that the Complainant has failed to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

Erhan you are one of the very few experienced in this field with the real knowledge required. Great to see your posts on these cases.

I wonder if it would be feasible for you and auDA to run a 1 or 2 day course for Australian lawyers to discuss and train them onAustralian domain name policy, RDNH etc.

It would not hurt to add it to the auDA website plus legal news etc. I think you could fill a room plus assist to clear up a lot of problems for both complaints, lawyers, auda, registrants, registrars / resellers, panelists etc.

RDNH policy still needs urgent updating for Australia... Let's get that done in 2017. Teach lawyers what it means at the auDA lawyer policy course! www.rdnh.com

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Erhan you are one of the very few experienced in this field with the real knowledge required. Great to see your posts on these cases.

I wonder if it would be feasible for you and auDA to run a 1 or 2 day course for Australian lawyers to discuss and train them onAustralian domain name policy, RDNH etc.

It would not hurt to add it to the auDA website plus legal news etc. I think you could fill a room plus assist to clear up a lot of problems for both complaints, lawyers, auda, registrants, registrars / resellers, panelists etc.

RDNH policy still needs urgent updating for Australia... Let's get that done in 2017. Teach lawyers what it means at the auDA lawyer policy course! www.rdnh.com

Hi Sean, I was recently asked by the Law Institute of Victoria to run a domain name seminar for lawyers which I did in March. We had a great turn out in person and on a webinar. I talked about RDNH and talked about domaining being a legitimate form of business. By the end of it a few lawyers came up to me and said they wanted to get into domaining! I own RDNH.com.au and am thinking about a having an Australian equivalent with a 'hall of shame'.

 

[Scott.L]

Erhan - do you think a review of the auDRP appeals process is required; given the undertaking by auDA to acquire feedback for .au implementation?

 

[DomainNames]

Hi Sean, I was recently asked by the Law Institute of Victoria to run a domain name seminar for lawyers which I did in March. We had a great turn out in person and on a webinar. I talked about RDNH and talked about domaining being a legitimate form of business. By the end of it a few lawyers came up to me and said they wanted to get into domaining! I own RDNH.com.au and am thinking about a having an Australian equivalent with a 'hall of shame'.

Get this up and running www.rdnh.com.au Australia needs it.

Really I think you should request auDA puts up your webinar on the auDA website also under Policy Education Resources etc. Very few people know all sides of the Australian policy like you would and also know what updates need to occur.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Erhan - do you think a review of the auDRP appeals process is required; given the undertaking by auDA to acquire feedback for .au implementation?

Hi Scott, I think policy should be reviewed regularly to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. It is sensible to review the auDRP in light of all environmental changes. My personal view is that we should consider whether we include a costs award mechanism against complainants in those extreme cases where they use the policy in bad faith ie. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Here is a blog post worth reading on RDNH.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Get this up and running www.rdnh.com.au Australia needs it.

Really I think you should request auDA puts up your webinar on the auDA website also under Policy Education Resources etc. Very few people know all sides of the Australian policy like you would and also know what updates need to occur.

Thanks Sean, Im open to ideas, so feel free to send them through. I have already done some of the work in this RDNH blog post.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Get this up and running www.rdnh.com.au Australia needs it.

Really I think you should request auDA puts up your webinar on the auDA website also under Policy Education Resources etc. Very few people know all sides of the Australian policy like you would and also know what updates need to occur.

Oh with regard to the seminar, my presentation is the 'property' of the Law Institute of Victoria, as they facilitated it and recorded it. I actually had a domainer friend ask me to do a YouTube video, good idea!

 

[DomainNames]

Oh with regard to the seminar, my presentation is the 'property' of the Law Institute of Victoria, as they facilitated it and recorded it. I actually had a domainer friend ask me to do a YouTube video, good idea!

Yes great idea do it on youtube the maybe Dntrade would allow you to post it also here under a new thread . I would really love to watch it and I think many people would find it most useful.

 

[Scott.L]

Hi Scott, I think policy should be reviewed regularly to ensure that it remains fit for purpose. It is sensible to review the auDRP in light of all environmental changes. My personal view is that we should consider whether we include a costs award mechanism against complainants in those extreme cases where they use the policy in bad faith ie. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. Here is a blog post worth reading on RDNH.

OMG - I wont be sleeping tonight.

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if the Panel finds that the complaint "was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder", the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" to be "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name"

I agree, a penalty should be disclosed and applied if found guilty.

Can a dispute be raised again?
What If the findings by the panel were decisive but later, new evidence came to light that could prove the respondant did have rights?


,

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

OMG - I wont be sleeping tonight.

D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if the Panel finds that the complaint "was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder", the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. Paragraph 1 of the Rules defines "Reverse Domain Name Hijacking" to be "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain name holder of a domain name"

I agree, a penalty should be disclosed and applied if found guilty.

Can a dispute be raised again?
What If the findings by the panel were decisive but later, new evidence came to light that could prove the respondant did have rights?


,

good question, I have had one UDRP case where the Complainant refiled and we still won! There are very limited circumstances under which a panel will allow a second filing, typically where new evidence comes to light. A quote from the case is:
The Panel adopts the approach of the panel in Maruiti Udyog Ltd v. Maruti.com (supra). The Panel should first decide whether, prima facie, the additional assertions are such that they should be admitted for consideration. The question then becomes whether the new evidence is sufficiently persuasive to lead to a different decision from that rendered in the previous case.

 

[DomainNames]

With legal costs considered the Australia RDNH penalty should be around $10k to cover the legitimate registrants costs plus stress and time to defend the matter.

This should be put into official policy discussion and if approved implementation asap... I know it has been floating around for too many years now.

It has been in Canada policy for many years and has been somewhat successful to stop RDNH lawyers and RDNH complaints who knew they where not legit. I have heard they are looking to increase their current Canada RDNH penalty.

To a major corporate RDNH complainant $10k is nothing but for a valid registrant it at least should help them not lose money in most circumstances once they win.

If people don't know what we are talking about check out WWW.RDNH.COM and the soon to be up and running www.rdnh.com.au

It is shameful for lawyers who know they are lodging such complaints they face no penalty. These RDNH guilty lawyers also need to be Named and Shamed... hopefully www.RDNH.COM.AU will do this wherever possible. If it was a normal court they could face action of penalty from the court for lodging and pursuing such matters.

It is not enough for a ruling to say RDNH. A penalty is needed ASAP or they will continue to do it

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

thanks guys you have all motivated me to get on with building the new website - keep any ideas flowing!

 

[DomainNames]

thanks guys you have all motivated me to get on with building the new website - keep any ideas flowing!

Hi Erhan,

What is the policy timeframe when a .com.au name needs to be monetised, url forwarded or active. Is there anything in policy which requires anything to be done in a certain timeframe?

This is important info for people to know. I believe there is no such timeframe and no such requirement but I wanted to check.

So for www.rdnh.com.au did you register it under "close and substantial connection" / monetisation as the domain name is not active, not url forwarded etc?

This is good info for people to know for their own registrations if they ever receive a complaint or contact from auDA about a none active registered names eligibility.

I know some complainants try and use the non active reason when lodging complaints trying to assert it proves some form of non eligibility. I want to make sure auDA does not accept such reasons or if they do everyone knows time frames when a name must be active within etc...

It may also be an idea for auDA to make this clear in Policy there is no time frame when a .au domain name must be active within... It can then be easily referred to when complainants and their lawyers try it.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Sean i'll go through all of the auDRP elements when we launch the site. I have a heap of content which I have prepared, and I know people will find helpful. Once I launch the site I will let you know.

 

[DomainNames]

Awesome