Case Details for WIPO Case DAU2006-0016

WIPO Case Summary

WIPO Case Number	DAU2006-0016
Domain name(s)	mapquest.com.au
Complainant	MapQuest.com, Inc.
Respondent	William Scully Power
Panelist	Rothnie, Warwick A. Ryan, Desmond J. (Presiding) Wilson, Ross
Decision Date	19-03-2007
Decision	Transfer

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

MapQuest.com, Inc. v. William Scully Power and MapQuest Australia

Case No. DAU2006-0016

1. The Parties

The Complainant is MapQuest.com, Inc. of Dulles, Virginia, United States of America, represented by Spruson & Ferguson Lawyers, Australia.

The Respondents are William Scully Power and MapQuest Australia of Sydney, Australia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <mapquest.com.au> is registered with NetRegistry Pty Ltd..

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 19, 2006. On December 21, 2006, and subsequently by way of reminder, the Center transmitted by email to NetRegistry Pty Ltd. a request for registrar verification in connection with the domain name at issue. On January 15, 2007, NetRegistry Pty Ltd. transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the Respondent’s 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 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 January 16, 2007. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was February 5, 2007. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 12, 2007.

The Center appointed Desmond J. Ryan, Warwick A. Rothnie and Ross Wilson as panelists in this matter on March 6, 2007. 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 disputed domain name was first registered on September 3, 2001. The registration was renewed on September 4, 2005. The disputed domain name does not resolve to a website.

Since February 1996 Complainant has provided an on-line map and directional service at its website “ The service consists of providing, inter alia, point to point maps and directions giving street level details and driving directions for a number of countries in North America and Europe and elsewhere, but not in Australia. Complainant asserts that currently its site attracts approximately 58 million unique visits per month of which about 65,000 are from Australia.

Complainant is the registered proprietor in several countries of a number of trade marks comprising the word “mapquest” and “mapquest.com”. These include Australian trade mark registrations 793155 and 793156, each registered from May 5, 1999 in respect of…

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 MapQuest.com, Inc. v. William Scully Power and MapQuest Aust... 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. DAU2006-0016
Decision Date: 19-03-2007

CaseChat Overview and Summary

In the case of MapQuest.com, Inc. v. William Scully Power and MapQuest Australia, the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center addressed a dispute concerning the domain name "mapquest.com.au". MapQuest.com, Inc., the complainant, is a United States-based company that provides online map and directional services. The respondent, William Scully Power, registered the domain name "mapquest.com.au" and is associated with MapQuest Australia. The dispute was brought under the .au Domain Name Resolution Policy.

The legal issues the court was required to decide were whether the complainant had rights in the domain name, whether the respondent had any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and whether the domain name had been registered and used in bad faith. The complainant argued that the domain name was identical to its trademark, that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that the registration and use of the domain name were in bad faith. The respondent did not respond to the complainant's contentions.

The court found that the domain name was identical to the complainant's trademark, that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name, and that the domain name had been registered and used in bad faith. The respondent's actions, including registering the domain name without authority and making false claims about registering companies under names including "MapQuest", demonstrated bad faith. The court ordered the transfer of the domain name "mapquest.com.au" to the complainant.

Orders