Law

Domain Name Dispute

Pursuant to Para. 4(a) of the .au Dispute Resolution Policy 2010 (hereinafter the Policy), the Complainant contends that the use of the domain name quickileaks-sucks.org is confusingly similar to its domain name quickileaks.org and that the addition of sucks.org to quick leaks does nothing to distinguish the two domain names. The Complainant further argues that over the last five years its use of quick leaks has earned a common law trademark. The common law trademark was acquired by increasing traffic to its site quickileaks.org and publicity in the media over the five year period. The Complainant also maintains that the Respondent does not have a legitimate interest or right in the domain name and is acting in bad faith. These contentions are supported by the assertion that the Respondent does not have a commercial purpose for the use of the domain name and has no connection to the Complainant’s common law trademark and was not authorized to use the trademark.According to Para. 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant was required to prove that the domain names and trade name were identical or confusingly similar. The Complainant was also required to prove that the Respondent did not have a right or legitimate interest in the domain names. The Complainant was also required to prove that the Respondent acted in bad faith. Thus the Complainant’s allegations do not mean that the Complainant’s allegations are automatically accepted as true. In addition, the Complainant is required to prove that it has a common law trademark. Each of these issues is considered below.What distinguishes the Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy (UNDRP) from the au. Policy, it is not necessary for the complainant to have a registered trademark. All that the complainant is required to prove under the au. A policy is that he or she have acquired a common law trademark through ‘sufficient evidence of use or reputation in the trademark to justify reliance on a common law trademark’.

Back To Top