Journal of Law, Information and Science: Domain Names in Australia - Legal and Contractual Dispute Resolution

3/22/2017 Bradfield, Owen "Domain Names in Australia Legal and Contractual Dispute Resolution" [2001] JlLawInfoSci 15; (2001) 12(2) Journal of Law, In...
Home | Databases | WorldLII | Search | Feedback
Journal of Law, Information and

Science
You are here: AustLII >> Databases >> Journal of Law, Information and Science >> 2001 >> [2001]
JlLawInfoSci 15
Database Search | Name Search | Recent Articles | Noteup | LawCite | Help
Bradfield, Owen "Domain Names in Australia Legal and Contractual Dispute
Resolution" [2001] JlLawInfoSci 15; (2001) 12(2) Journal of Law, Information and
Science 231
Domain Names in Australia – Legal and Contractual Dispute Resolution
Abstract
Introduction – domain names and disputes
Substantive differences between the UDRP and the auDRP
2.1 Characteristics of the UDRP and the new auDRP
Legal protection of domain names
3.1 Domain names as trademarks
3.2 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA)
Passing off – common law
Conclusion
Domain Names in Australia – Legal and Contractual Dispute
Resolution
OWEN BRADFIELD[*]
Abstract
With the increasing use of the Internet in both public and private life, there is increasing competition for
domain names. This has led to disputes concerning the rights of parties to particular domain names, and
discussion as to the precise relationship between domain names and trademarks. Recently, .au Domain
Administration (auDA) assumed the rights to administer Australian domain names and, in August 2002,
established an Australian dispute resolution policy (auDRP) for domain name registration. This
represented an extension of the American‐based Uniform dispute resolution policy (UDRP) that had been
in force in Australia for some time. However, the impact of these changes to dispute resolution in Australia
remains to be realised, particularly since there has been little judicial comment on domain names in
Australia.
Introduction – domain names and disputes

Domain names are ‘user‐friendly’ computer addresses that allow others to know where a person or
entity is located on the Internet. With the seemingly exponential increase in popularity and
commercialisation of the Internet, competition to register prominent, conspicuous, relevant
‘aesthetically pleasing and mnemonically stimulating’[1] domain names has increased. This has
provoked reform of the allocation of Internet domain names. Previously, this process was relatively
informal, and depended largely on a voluntary basis. In June 1998, the United States Department of
Commerce proposed that a private, non‐pro渄it corporation oversee this role internationally, and the
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) was consequently established under
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/2001/15.html 1/8
Californian law[2] to manage the global domain name system. On October 24 1999, ICANN approved a
contractual model for the resolution of domain name disputes, known as the Uniform Domain Name
Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP). To date, this is the paramount international legal framework for the
regulation of Internet domain names.[3] Before obtaining registration of .com, .net and .org gTLDs,
applicants must agree to be bound by the UDRP. It is intended to act as a rapid and inexpensive forum
for resolving ‘obvious’ and simple, rather than complex, complaints.[4] Complainants must show that a
domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark, that the owner of the
domain name has no legitimate interest in the domain name and that the domain name is being used in
bad faith. In the 渄irst two years, there were in excess of 4500 disputes under the policy.[5]
In 1999, the Australian government established .au Domain Administration Limited (auDA), a non‐
pro渄it organization, to regulate the registration of the Internet domain names. Subsequently, in
September 2001, auDA entered into a sponsorship agreement with ICANN that gives auDA the right to
administer the .au ccTLD.[6] The constitution of auDA takes the view that the Internet Domain Name
System is a public asset, and that since the .au ccTLD is under the sovereign control of the
Commonwealth of Australia, auDA will administer the .au ccTLD for the bene渄it of the Australian
community, under the delegation of ICANN.[7] On 1st August 2002, a new Australian dispute resolution
policy (auDRP) for Internet domain name allocation was established. The auDRP is one of many
extensions to the UDRP instigated by various countries. The auDRP was formulated to take account of
speci渄ic policy rules that might apply to .au domain name registration that do not apply to the gTLD
domain names.[8] For instance, policy restrictions in Australia require applicants to obtain a domain
name only if it is derived from a business name or entity. The auDRP is also intended to address
practical constraints that have become apparent since arbitrations under the UDRP began in 1999,[9]
and the fact that disputes between domain name registrants and third parties have been relatively less
common in the .au domain. This paper will examine the major differences, in substance and form,
between the UDRP and the auDRP and will explore adventitious avenues of legal protection afforded to
holders of either domain names or trademarks in Australia.
Substantive differences between the UDRP and the auDRP

During the drafting process, there were several arguments in favour of auDA creating different rules to
ICANN’s UDRP. Firstly, unlike ICANN, auDA is a regulatory body established by the Australian
government, so it was felt that the rules should re渄lect the local differences in domain name registration
and practices aforementioned. Secondly, the rules should re渄lect that the domain name industry is
relatively more inchoate in Australia, compared to the global industry. On the other hand, some felt that
signi渄icant differences between the auDRP and UDRP would frustrate continued international
uniformity and certainty in domain name dispute resolution. However, since precedent does not bind
panellists under the UDRP, sometimes confusing and contradictory domain name jurisprudence has
resulted. The practical effect of the auDRP has been to clarify some issues, whilst simply codifying other
practices that have apparently become customary.
Paragraph 4(a) of both the UDRP and the auDRP enunciate the elements that a complainant must
establish in order to prove a breach of the policies. Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the auDRP provides that for a
complaint to be lodged, the domain name must be identical or confusingly similar to a name, trademark
or service mark, whereas under the UDRP, the provisions only included a trademark. The auDRP is
therefore intended to include the situation where the domain name holder is using the name of a
famous person in bad faith. The practical effect of the inclusion of personal names as the subject of
domain name protection would be to dispel confusion. The WIPO report that led to ICANN adopting the
UDRP, stated that registrations that violate personality rights would not fall within the de渄inition of
abusive registration for the purposes of the administrative procedure.[10] To support this, in Bruce
Springsteen v Jeff Burgar and Bruce Springsteen Club,[11] it was found obiter dicta that the UDRP was not
necessarily intended to protect proper names of this nature. Nevertheless, in other cases, panellists
have held personal names to be akin to unregistered trademarks and were suf渄icient to confer standing.
[12] [13]
Under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the UDRP, domain name holders must both register and use a domain
name in bad faith in order for the conduct to amount to abusive registration. This was the subject of
considerable controversy when ICANN ignored the recommendations of the 1999 WIPO 渄inal report
that the word and be replaced with or, since it is use rather than registration of a mark that is of most
concern to trademark owners. However, the case of Telstra Corporation v Nuclear Marshmallows[14]
interpreted this provision to mean ‘acting’ in bad faith. On the facts, the panellist found it dif渄icult to
believe that the respondent was unaware of the consequences for Telstra of registering the domain
name. Thus, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the auDRP reads that the domain name must have been registered or
subsequently used in bad faith. This proscribes anomalous situations that could arise under the UDRP,
where a domain name holder can ‘passively warehouse’ a domain name simply to prevent other
companies from registering an interest in a domain name. However, the practical effect of the auDRP in
this respect may be minimal as most UDRP panels have nevertheless interpreted the and to mean or.
[15]
Paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP and the auDRP establish non‐exclusive examples of conduct amounting to
bad faith. Whereas paragraph 4(b)(i) of the UDRP makes it an offence to register a domain name for the
purpose of transferring it to the complainant or a competitor of the complainant, the corresponding
provision in the auDRP simply requires the intention to transfer the domain name to another person,
provided the holder of the domain name offers the domain name for an amount greater than that
domain name holder’s out‐of‐pocket expenses. However, the new auDRP provision may continue to be
read in conjunction with previous UDRP panel decisions that an offer to sell a domain name some
considerable time after the name was registered does not amount to registration in bad faith.[16]
Paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the auDRP no longer requires that the respondent have been engaged in a pattern
of conduct of registering domain names for the purpose of selling, transferring or leasing them to third
parties. It is suf渄icient to show that the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the
complainant from registering the domain name. Penultimately, paragraph 4(b)(iii) clari渄ies that
attempts to attract Internet users to any other sites also amounts to bad faith, not just to other websites
owned by the domain name holder. Finally, paragraph 4(c)(i) clari渄ies that it is the use of the domain
name that must be in bad faith, rather than the provision of goods and services, although the latter
arguably amount to evidence of use in bad faith. Notwithstanding, a person offering a legitimate
product over the Internet by attracting customers to a domain name identical to the trademark, service
mark or name of another party, is still using the domain name in bad faith.[17]
It is also noteworthy that three of the four providers approved by ICANN for dispute resolution (World
Intellectual Property Organisation (WIPO), CRP Institute for dispute resolution, eResolution and the
National Arbitration Forum) are different to those used by auDA (Leading Edge Alternative Dispute
Resolvers (LEADR), The Chartered Institute of Arbitrators ‐ Australian Branch (CIArb), The Institute of
Arbitrators and Mediators Australia (IAMA) and WIPO). Thus, the use of local dispute resolution
providers in the determination of auDRP disputes is likely to in渄luence the course of future decisions,
since these providers contribute local experience and practice.
2.1 Characteristics of the UDRP and the new auDRP
In its relatively short existence, the UDRP has been both praised and vili渄ied.[18] The UDRP has
addressed con渄licts between domain name registration rights and trademark rights that many people
believe were poorly handled previously.[19] The UDRP fosters ef渄icient and expeditious resolution of
claims by trademark holders against an infringing domain name registrant, and provides relief from the
procedural burdens and costs that can impede access to justice. However, this must be equilibrated
with the limited remedies that a trademark holder has available in a UDRP proceeding, which include
either cancellation of the registrant’s domain name or transfer of the domain name to the complainant.
Registrars must comply with the decisions of panellists, because ICANN approves and oversees them.
This makes UDRP decisions enforceable, but not binding, since either party can take the matter to
court. Even after an adverse decision under the UDRP, a respondent or claimant could pursue litigation
against the successful party.[20] Absent any superseding court decision, UDRP determinations are
enforced by the eviction of the registrant from the domain name system. While the result is not
technically binding, there is no way for the respondent to ‘opt out’ of the process, which some claim
amounts to a fundamental violation of liberty under the façade of contractual agreement.[21] It is not
possible to acquire a .com, .net or .org website, without ‘consenting’ to the UDRP. Although registrants
who licensed their domain name before introduction of the auDRP will not be subject to the auDRP
unless they choose to ‘sign on’ to the auDRP, they will nevertheless become bound by the auDRP upon
renewing their domain name. Thus, it is regrettable that the apparent inattention to natural justice has
been perpetuated in Australia.
The ef渄icacy of the UDRP arises from its limited scope in addressing cases of only abusive registrations.
Thus, a panellist decides abridged issues that focus on alleged bad faith, or lack of legitimate interests
in a domain name. UDRP disputes are therefore cost‐effective. As of March 2001, the 渄iling fee for a
dispute involving a single domain name, heard by a single panellist, was US$1,150.[22] This makes the
UDRP an attractive alternative to prolonged legal action. However, it is has been pointed out that since
complainants pay the fees, which go to the provider and then to the panellists who decide the case,
there is a 渄inancial incentive for providers to decide cases in favour of complainants in order to
encourage further complaints.[23] Additionally, protracted litigation is also likely to be complex
litigation, which the UDRP is not adept to arbitrate. The administrative panels only consider written
submissions and do not provide for discovery or interrogatories by the parties, elements that typically
increase the 渄inancial and temporal cost of the proceedings. The UDRP enables parties to draft their
own submissions by making forms conveniently available on‐line. This effectively annuls the need to
obtain legal representation and engage in costly and lengthy civil procedure. However, the disposal of
the need for discovery can lead to an imbalance in the information of each party.
Under the UDRP, the panellists who decide cases are selected from one of four dispute resolution
providers. Proponents of the UDRP argue that these highly experienced decision‐makers have the skills
necessary to make high quality determinations, being retired judges, lawyers or law professors.[24] The
level of knowledge and experience of these panellists can in渄luence trademark holders when choosing a
UDRP proceeding over litigation. Indeed, it is a criticism of the UDRP that it favours complainants by
allowing, ‘forum shopping’. Since the complainant has the choice of provider, they can examine the track
record and rules of each provider and 渄ile their complaint with their preferred provider. For instance,
WIPO panels have ruled for the complainant over 80% of the time, while eResolution and its arbitrators
have found for the complainant less than 60% of the time.[25] Fundamentally, this causes one to
question the impartiality of the decision‐maker. To overcome this putative problem, it has been
suggested that the registrars of the domain name be responsible for selecting a single dispute
resolution provider. Unfortunately, this too remains problematic under the auDRP.
As previously mentioned, it has been argued that the decisions of the UDRP panellists are inconsistent.
Different panellists have adopted different interpretations of the meaning of terms contained within
the UDRP, which may also suggest an inadequate knowledge of intellectual property law, evidenced by
differing opinion as to the meaning of ‘bad faith’. Moreover, the rights of complainants to resubmit an
unsuccessful claim have yet to be developed, so there is no means of correcting potentially bad law.[26]
In addition, no case summaries are provided and submissions are not legally prepared, so they often
fail to address the issue in terms of the UDRP.[27] This complicates the matters for panellists who have a
limited time in which to reach a decision. However, these dif渄iculties are understandable given the lack
of precedent with which panel members can work. It is likely that there will be increasing certainty
about what should constitute a successful UDRP claim, as more cases are decided. Experienced
panellists are already developing expertise with the UDRP ‘jurisdiction’, and their decisions have
developed a seemingly novel common law.
Given the international nature of the Internet, oral evidence is often impossible, allowing instead for
detailed written evidence. This makes it dif渄icult for panellists to assess the credibility or veracity of
claims or defences. For instance, respondents are sometimes setting up a mock business plan and
prototype website so as to have legitimate interests in the domain name. Furthermore, respondents
could register their domain names with different domain name registries in order to avoid detection of
patterns of behaviour that amount to registration of multiple domain names. Unfortunately, both the
UDRP and auDRP seem to discourage video‐, telephone‐ or web‐conferences,[28] techniques that could
potentially overcome the limitations with purely written evidence.
At length, the UDRP imposes unilateral costs, covers limited claims, restricts the procedural rights of
the parties, attenuates the issues considered, only reaches those who come voluntarily into the system,
and limits enforcement to exile from the domain name system. Thus, it is frequently argued that
decisions do not go far enough, since the UDRP does not protect domain names to which no trademark
attaches, thereby furthering af渄luent and eminent interests. In this vein, it is clear that the auDRP has
made some comparatively minor substantive adjustments to the rules, but very few major changes to
their application and form, and therefore represents a largely insigni渄icant addition to international
domain name jurisprudence. However, both policies provide simple and 渄lexible regulatory frameworks
that re渄lect the global nature and rapid development of the Internet.[29]
Legal protection of domain names

Although Australia has no equivalent of the US Anti‐Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, the auDRP
does not prevent complainants from going to court, either for judicial review of auDRP decisions or for
separate proceedings. There has been no judicial comment to date on the possibility of domain name
registration or use in relation to trademark infringement,[30] but the nature of many cases heard under
the UDRP, suggests that the Trade Marks Act (Cth) 1995 may be pertinent.[31]
3.1 Domain names as trademarks
Under s.17 of the Australian Trade Marks Act 1995 (Cth) (TMA), a trademark is de渄ined as a sign used,
or intended to be used, to distinguish goods or services dealt with or provided by a person in the
course of trade, from goods or services so dealt with or provided by any other person. A sign is de渄ined
under s.6 as, inter alia, any letter, word, name, signature, numeral, brand or heading. Under s.20, the
registered owner of a trademark has exclusive rights to use the mark. A trademark is infringed, per
s.120, if a sign is identical, deceptively similar, or closely related, to a registered trademark, unless it
does not cause confusion. As recognized by ICANN and auDA, domain names are increasingly used to
identify businesses or personalities and are therefore increasingly assuming the role of trademarks.
Where two parties own identical trademarks for either similar or dissimilar goods or services, the
domain name registration will be upheld on a 渄irst‐in‐time basis. However, under s.20 of the TMA, the
domain name owner is only allowed to use the domain name in relation to their own trademark, and
not the trademark of the other party. In the UK case of Prince PLC v Prince Sports Group PLC,[32] Prince
PLC was a UK based IT company that registered the domain name ‘prince.com’ before Prince Sports
Group PLC, which manufactured tennis racquets. The UK courts held that the sale of sportswear was in
no way connected to information technology. Prince PLC was able keep its domain name because it was
unlikely that customers would be confused. Upcroft[33] argues that this case would be likewise decided
in Australia given the similarity between the UK Trade Marks Act 1994 and s.120 of the Australian TMA,
which deal with infringement of a registered trademark where another is deceptively similar.
Cybersquatting is where someone registers a domain name in the name of a business with no
connection to the business upon which the domain name is based. Although there is yet to be any
Australian curial pronouncement in relation to cybersquatting, people using a site in connection with
the unrelated goods and services of another trademark holder, may be infringing s.120(3) of the TMA –
particularly where the trademark is well known and thus most likely to confuse. However, in the US
case of Panavision International v Toeppen,[34] the defendant registered a domain name
‘panavision.com’ and subsequently offered to sell it to Panavision. This was held to infringe the value of
the trademark of Panavision, even though there was no actual confusion over Toeppen’s use of the
domain name. Likewise, typosquatting or domain mimicry is a variation of cybersquatting where
domain names are registered with one letter or number altered, making them easily mistyped and
therefore confusingly similar to a trademark. For instance, a domain name ‘micros0ft.com’ could be
confusingly similar to the Microsoft Corporation.[35] In Australia, such a domain name could well be
challenged under s.120(3) of the TMA since the domain name would be ‘substantially identical or
deceptively similar to’ a trademark. Moreover, it may constitute an unauthorized use of a trademark
under s.20, or a false representation under s.151.[36]
Therefore, it would appear, prima facie, that trademark owners have rights to protect their claims to
legitimate use and registration of domain names in Australia.
3.2 Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth) (TPA)
A domain name dispute could arise under s.52 of the TPA since a corporation cannot, in trade or
commerce, engage in conduct that is misleading or deceptive or is likely to mislead or deceive. This
provision is commonly used to prevent another business from trading under a deceptively similar
name. Clearly, it could also prevent a company from cybersquatting and using a domain name that is
likely to mislead or deceive consumers. In Sydney Markets Ltd v Sydney Flower Market Pty Ltd,[37] it was
held that the defendant’s registration of various domain names[38] that were similar to the plaintiff’s
domain name <sydney渄lowermarket.com.au>, was likely to mislead the public. However, the situation is
unclear if the two businesses traded in unrelated goods or services, since actual or likely deception,
required by s.52, would be absent.
Passing off – common law
Finally, the common law tort of passing off may also be available in Australia to protect holders of
unregistered marks from abusive and deceptive domain name registration. However, this cause of
action has been largely supplanted by s.52 of the TPA since the latter has the wider power to grant
remedies in the absence of actual or potential damage.[39] In spite of this, there may be two situations
in which passing off may be useful: 渄irstly, in cases where individuals, rather than companies, abusively
register a domain name; and secondly, where there is mere registration of a deceptively similar domain
name. Fletcher Challenge Ltd v Fletcher Challenge Pty Ltd[40] held that mere registration of a company
name is suf渄icient to constitute passing off where there is a misrepresented association with another
entity, even if the defendant does not actually use the name. Registration of a domain name may
therefore amount to equipment with an ‘instrument of fraud’.[41]
Conclusion
To date, the principal means of resolving disputes between domain name registrants and owners of
trademarks has been through the UDRP. This contractual model has recently been extended to the
Australian context by way of the auDRP, which seeks to encompass unique aspects of the Australian
domain name industry. This thesis has examined some black letter and practical differences between
the UDRP and auDRP and shows that whilst some minor uncertainties have been resolved, major
procedural ambiguities remain. Furthermore, Australian courts have been palpably pauciloquent on the
legal status of domain names under either the TMA or TPA. Therefore, substantial domain name law
reform remains elusive, since many issues remain unresolved.
[*] Owen Brad渄ield is a 渄inal year Master of Laws and Bachelor of Medicine/Surgery student at Monash
University in Melbourne, Australia.
[1] Upcroft A, ‘Trade marks as domain names: an Australian perspective’ [1999] MacarthurLawRw 5;
(1999), 3 Mac LR 43.
[2] Lindsay D, ‘Internet domain name dispute resolution’ (2002), paper presented to BLEC congress
2002.
[3] Argy P & Breadsell L, ‘Domain name dispute resolution procedures overseas and in Australia’
(2002), 14(7) Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin 73.
[4] White Paper, 63 Fed. Reg. 31,741 (June 10, 1998),
http:// www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/ 6_5_98dns.htm.
[5] Argy P & Breadsell L, ‘Domain name dispute resolution procedures overseas and in Australia’
(2002), 14(7) Australian Intellectual Property Law Bulletin 73.
[6] Ng C, ‘Australian domain names: the new rules (2002)’, GEN/CEN1061:1.
<http://www.maddocks.com.au/download/australian‐domain‐names.pdf> .
[7] ibid.
[8] Wiseman A and Byrne A. ‘Dispute resolution for Australian domain names’. 6(5) Telemedia 59.
[9] ibid.
[10] WIPO, Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, 30 April 1999; cited in Lindsay D,
‘Internet domain name dispute resolution’ (2002), paper presented to BLEC congress 2002.
http://wipo2.wipo.int/process1/report/index.html.
[11] WIPO Case No D2000‐1532 (January 25, 2001).
[12] Jeanette Winterson v Mark Hogarth, WIPO Case No D2000‐0235 (May 22, 2000).
[13] Julia Roberts v Russell Boyd WIPO Case No D2000‐0210 (May 29, 2000).
[14] WIPO Case No D2000‐0003 (February 18, 2000).
2002.
[16] Software, Inc v Doom Gaming Connection NAF FA95002 (July 24, 2000).
[17] Thornburg EG, ‘Fast, cheap and out of control: lessons from the ICANN dispute resolution process’
(2002), 6 Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law 191.
[18] Anderson EC & Cole TS, ‘The UDRP – a model for dispute resolution in e‐commerce’ (2002), 6
Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law 235.
[19] Anderson EC & Cole TS, ‘The UDRP – a model for dispute resolution in e‐commerce’ (2002), 6
Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law 235, at 236.
[20] ‘ICANN, Approved Providers for Uniform Domain‐Name Dispute‐Resolution Policy,’ at
http://www.icann.org/dndr/ approved‐providers.htm.
(2002), 6 Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law 191.
[22] National Arbitration Forum, UDRP Schedule of Fees, at http:// www.arb‐
forum.com/domains/UDRP/fees.asp.
[23] Geist M, ‘WIPO Wipes Out Domain Name Rights’, Globe & Mail, Aug. 24, 2000, at
http://www.globetechnology .com/archive.
[24] ICANN, ‘Approved Providers for Uniform Domain‐Name Dispute‐Resolution’ Policy, at
http://www.icann.org/dndr/approved‐providers. Htm.
[25] Geist M, ‘WIPO Wipes Out Domain Name Rights’, Globe & Mail, Aug. 24, 2000, at
http://www.globetechnology .com/archive.
[26] See, e.g., Furrytails Ltd. v Andrew Mitchell d/b/a Oxford Die‐ Cast, Case No. D2001‐0857 (WIPO Sept.
6, 2001) (Argy, Panelist), at http://www.wipo.int/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001‐0857.html;
High Speed Prods., Inc. v Thrasher Magazine Ltd., Claim No. FA97008 (NAF June 20, 2001) (Meyerson,
Panelist), at http:// www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/97008.htm.
[27] Ibid.
(2002), 6 Journal of Small and Emerging Business Law 191, at 200.
[29] Weinberg J, ‘ICANN and the problem of legitimacy’ (2002), 50 Duke Law Journal 187.
2002.
[31] Jones ML, ‘The internet and domain names – recent developments’ (2002), 5(9) TeleMedia 135.
[32] CH 1997, P No.2355.
(1999), 3 Mac LR 43.
[34] 947 F Supp 1227 (ND III 1996).
[35] Loundy D, ‘A primer on trade mark law and internet addresses’ (1997), 15 John Marshall Journal of
Computer and Info Law 465.
(1999), 3 Mac LR 43.
[37] [2002] FCA 124 (22 February 2002).
[38] Including <sydney渄lower.com.au>, <syndney渄lowermarket.com> and sydney渄lowermarket.net.au>
[39] Alderson M, Passing Off – Personality Rights And Trade Practices Law Sydney, Prospect Media, 1997.
[40] [1981] 1 NSWLR 196.
[41] British Telecommunications Plc v One in a Million Ltd [1998] EWCA Civ 1272; (1998) 42 IPR 289 at
302.
AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/JlLawInfoSci/2001/15.html

Journal of Law, Information and Science: Domain Names in Australia - Legal and Contractual Dispute Resolution

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Journal of Law, Information and Science: Domain Names in Australia - Legal and Contractual Dispute Resolution

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

3/22/2017 Bradfield, Owen "Domain Names in Australia Legal and Contractual Dispute Resolution" [2001] JlLawInfoSci 15; (2001) 12(2) Journal of Law, In...