Leader.com.au in auDRP

[DavidL]

Interesting one this one.

http://www.auda.org.au/audrp/current-proceedings/

Generic term, website appears to have plenty of relevant content.

However what is interesting is that the guys who are actually adjudicating, would probably have the closest competing interest in the name of anybody - www.leadr.com.au

07/05/12
LEADR-auDRP05/12
leader.com.au

See the 'LEADR' above. Surely a coincidence!

 

[James]

Owners of the domain seem to hold a few nice domains - http://australianflourish.com.au

That been said their is a local newspaper in my area called "The Leader"

 

[snoopy]

Would imagine it is the newspaper group after it. The content is really just rubbish though should be defendable.

 

[ScottNugent]

The Leader is also a paper in my area (Sutherland Shire). Unsure of their current domain...

 

[James]

The Leader is also a paper in my area (Sutherland Shire). Unsure of their current domain...

Yeah I live in the shire too, they are using the domain www.theleader.com.au they push it on branding too.

 

[ScottNugent]

Yeah I live in the shire too, they are using the domain www.theleader.com.au they push it on branding too.

Wow, big coincidence! Great place to live

 

[FirstPageResults]

News Limited publishes 'Leader Community Newspapers' across Melboune , and the other leader paper mentioned above is Fairfax owned

http://www.newsspace.com.au/communitynews/leader

I'm sure they'd both like it

 

[FirstPageResults]

Also domain age goes right back to 1999, the current site is a few years old

 

[FirstPageResults]

This decision for this case was "Name Cancellation", but the link to the PDF on the auDA website is broken.. anyone know what happened?

 

[Joel]

This page shows the "Decision" as name cancellation. Does this mean it's already been carried out and the outcome is the name will be cancelled?

http://www.auda.org.au/audrp/proceedings-archive/

 

[neddy]

This decision for this case was "Name Cancellation", but the link to the PDF on the auDA website is broken.. anyone know what happened?

Just had a chat with Jo Lim, and they will fix broken link.
.

 

[neddy]

Just had a chat with Jo Lim, and they will fix broken link.

Just had an update. The problem was that the file size (from Leadr) was too big to upload on the auDA site.

They are awaiting new file, so may not be up until early next week.
.

 

[FirstPageResults]

Link has been fixed.. Interesting reading:

http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/LEADR-auDRP0512.pdf

 

[payattention]

I can't imagine either party is happy. Complainant doesn't get the domain and the Respondent loses it. Seems like a knuckleheaded decision where no-one wins. I guess this could only get better if LEADR picked it up on the drops.

 

[Cooper Mills DomainLawyer]

Hi Jonathan, while I am not commenting on the merits of the case.

I would prefer cancellations in some cases. This case is an example where someone has abused the process of auDRP to try and secure a generic name. The Panelist saw through it and decided that it would be best because of the generic nature of the domain that there would be a lot people who would be eligible to hold the domain - in those circumstances it would be best to put it back into the pool.

This sends a strong message to Complainants.....

 

[neddy]

I can't imagine either party is happy. Complainant doesn't get the domain and the Respondent loses it. Seems like a knuckleheaded decision where no-one wins. I guess this could only get better if LEADR picked it up on the drops.

I agree totally.

• It goes to prove (to me anyway) that having a single panelist is a big risk.

• The other issue that stands out to me is the blurring of the lines between a "close and substantial" connection - and the domain monetisation policy. The interpretation that
  the panelist took was "interesting". See (10), (11) and (12) of the Determination.

• Imho, the respondent was in no way attempting to "pass themselves off" as the complainant. One of the three requirements in an auDRP that a complainant must satisfy is that:

"The domain names have been registered or subsequently used in bad faith"

• On a generic word, and given what the respondent used the domain for, how could that possibly be "bad faith"? Yet the panelist (worryingly) found a way for it to be so. See (14).

• So once again it seems that you have a complainant who attempts to buy a domain name - they gets rebuffed - then they file an auDRP.

I would think that the bidding on the drops may be quite vigorous.

Imho.
.

 

[Shane]

It's a pretty scary outcome to be honest.

Looking back via archive.org it appears there was no monetisation happening. Perhaps a few relevant ads would have solved the problem...?

This shows that if you're going to hold premium domains, it's worth putting some effort into decent development and monetisation.

 

[DavidL]

The Panelist saw through it and decided that it would be best because of the generic nature of the domain that there would be a lot people who would be eligible to hold the domain...

I wonder whether the fact that the panelist represented Leadr brought home the fact that there could be multiple eligible parties for such a domain.

Will Leadr now be bidding on Leader.com.au - they certainly have a right to!

 

[neddy]

Link has been fixed.. Interesting reading:

http://www.auda.org.au/pdf/LEADR-auDRP0512.pdf

Just by the by, you'd think an S.C. would have this document spell checked before distributing it as a decision.

Page 1 - Clause 2.1 - first line - last word. "Corporatate"
.

 

[Ash]

I wonder who the backorder belongs to on today's drop?