A Western Australian business sought to register a Domain Name similar to its business name, and found it was registered to another similar business. It attempted, unsuccessfully, to contact the business that had registered the subject Domain Name, to negotiate the transfer of the Domain Name. And so it served a Complaint on Institute of Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA) in accordance with the .au Dispute Resolution Policy.

IAMA forwarded the Complaint to the Respondent, giving the respondent 20 days to provide his Response, in the manner prescribed.

No Response was received by IAMA, as at 6 May 2008.

IAMA appointed Steve Lieblich as Panellist in this matter on 9 May 2008.

Steve issued a letter of inquiry to the parties inviting their responses by 16 May 2008. The Complainant responded on 13 May. The Respondent responded partially on 14 May, advising that he was awaiting further advice before responding in full, then again, partially, on 16 May.

Steve rendered his decision on 23 May 2008. He decided that the domain name, registered to the Respondent, shall be transferred to the Complainant, because

(i) The Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Business Name which the Complainant has registered with the WA Department of Consumer & Employment Protection

(ii) The Respondent claimed no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. and offered no other evidence of any similarity of the Domain Name with its company, business or other legal or trading name, as registered with the relevant Australian government authority; or any personal name associated with the Respondent.

(iii) The Domain Name had been registered or subsequently used in bad faith. The Respondent verified that the Domain Name was used to attract traffic searching for terms similar to that name, and described no other use of the URL.

CONNECT WITH LIEBLICH & ASSOCIATES
Archives