Case Details for WIPO Case D2006-0300

WIPO Case Summary

WIPO Case Number	D2006-0300
Domain name(s)	assetloanco.net
Complainant	Asset Loan Co. Pty Ltd
Respondent	Greg Rogers
Panelist	Brown Q.C., The Hon Neil (Presiding) Osborne, Dawn Spence, Michael J.
Decision Date	02-05-2006
Decision	Transfer

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Asset Loan Co. Pty Ltd v. Gregory Rogers

Case No. D2006-0300

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Asset Loan Co. Pty Ltd, Queensland, Australia, represented by Mallesons Stephen Jacques, Australia.

The Respondent is Gregory Rogers, New South Wales, Australia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <assetloanco.net> is registered with Tucows.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 9, 2006. On March 9, 2006, the Center transmitted by email to Tucows a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On March 9, 2006 Tucows transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details for the administrative, billing, and technical contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 15, 2006. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was April 4, 2006. The Response was filed with the Center March 28, 2006.

The Center appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC, Dawn Osborne and Michael J. Spence as panelists in this matter on April 18, 2006. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. Each member of the Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is an Australian company engaged in the finance industry. It was incorporated on January 27, 2004. It is the subsidiary of Asset Loans Ltd which was incorporated on August 1, 2000, and listed on the Australian Stock Exchange on November 11, 2004.

On January 20, 2003, the Complainant registered the domain name <assetloanco.com>. It has a website at “ (‘the Complainant’s website’).

On July 6, 2004, the Complainant became the registered owner of Australian Trade Mark Number 1009478 which is described in the registration as:

‘Word:

ASSET LOAN CO. DISCRETION ASSURED ALTERNATIVE FINANCING

Image:

TRIANGLE, CURVED CUTS RING’.

The mark also includes a logo depicting the image described above.

The Respondent registered the contentious domain name on May 22, 2005. The domain name resolves to the website at “ (‘the Respondent’s website’).

The Respondent is also resident in Australia and was previously a customer of Asset Loan…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Asset Loan Co. Pty Ltd v Greg Rogers and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: WIPO Case No. D2006-0300
Decision Date: 02-05-2006

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Asset Loan Co. Pty Ltd, an Australian finance company, initiated a complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP) against Greg Rogers, who was registered as the owner of the domain name <assetloanco.net>. The Complainant alleged that the domain name was confusingly similar to its trademark, that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that it had been registered and used in bad faith. The Panel found that the domain name was confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark, as it incorporated the entire name of the trademark without any qualification. The Panel also found that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, as he had used it to gain leverage in ongoing litigation between the parties. The Panel further found that the Respondent had registered and used the domain name in bad faith, as he had deliberately created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant's mark to attract internet users for commercial gain. The Panel ordered the transfer of the domain name to the Complainant.

Orders