Case Details for WIPO Case DAU2020-0023

WIPO Case Summary

WIPO Case Number	DAU2020-0023
Domain name(s)	linkecu.com.au
Complainant	Link Engine Management Limited
Respondent	DDMF Pty Ltd
Panelist	Rothnie, Warwick A.
Decision Date	09-11-2020
Decision	Transfer

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Link Engine Management Limited v. DDMF Pty Ltd

Case No. DAU2020-0023

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Link Engine Management Limited, New Zealand, represented by Norton Rose Fulbright LLP, Australia.

The Respondent is Diff Labb, a/k/a Link ECU Australia, Australia, internally-represented.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <linkecu.com.au> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 21, 2020. On September 21, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to GoDaddy.com, LLC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 22, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .au 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 September 23, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 13, 2020. On October 12, 2020, the Respondent contacted the Center requesting an extension to the Response filing period. Pursuant to paragraph 5(d) of the Rules, the Center invited the Complainant to provide any comments relating to the Respondent’s request by October 13, 2020. On October 13, 2020, the Respondent contacted the Center specifying its request for an extension to a period of one week. On October 14, 2020, the Center informed the Parties that pursuant to paragraph 5(d) of the Rules, the Response filing period would be extended until October 21, 2020. The Response was filed with the Center on October 21, 2020.

The Center appointed Warwick A. Rothnie as the sole panelist in this matter on October 23, 2020. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. 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 a New Zealand company founded in 1991. It manufactures and supplies aftermarket motorsport electronics and in particular engine control units or ECUs.

According to the Complaint, it sells these products in many countries throughout the world, including Australia where its products have been on the market since about 2000.

It appears that much of the Complainant’s marketing and sales are conducted through a website to which the domain name <linkecu.com> resolves and which the Complainant registered in 2006.

The Complainant also has the domain…

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 Link Engine Management Limited v DDMF Pty Ltd 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. DAU2020-0023
Decision Date: 09-11-2020

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Link Engine Management Limited, a New Zealand company, brought a complaint against DDMF Pty Ltd, trading as Diff Lab, an Australian company, over the domain name "linkecu.com.au" before the World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration and Mediation Center (WIPO). The Complainant argued 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 Respondent had registered the domain name on January 7, 2020, while it was an approved dealer of the Complainant's products. The Respondent had also registered two business names, "Link ECU Australia" and "Link Engine Management Australia," on the same day. The Respondent had used the domain name to advertise and sell the Complainant's products alongside other automotive parts. The Panel found that the Complainant had established that the domain name was identical or confusingly similar to its name and trade marks. The Panel also found that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name as it had registered and used it in violation of the Complainant's website terms and conditions. The Panel further found that the Respondent had registered and used the domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel ordered that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

The court in this case considered whether the Respondent had any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and whether the domain name had been registered or used in bad faith. The court found that the Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name as it had registered and used it in violation of the Complainant's website terms and conditions. The court also found that the Respondent had registered and used the domain name in bad faith. The court ordered that the domain name be transferred to the Complainant.

Orders