>The company in question was registered well and truly before any
>announcement of generic auctions and in fact the Trademark application was
>also clearly prior to that date too!

Still no name of the company or of the domain name requested.

>         This from ASIC National names index search:
>                 Registration Date 09/04/1991   Status Registered

So they had A name in 1991 ...

>         and this shows the date of name change to current name:
>                 12/11/1999 205A Notification of Resolution Changing Company

Then LONG after auDA was in process and some 3 years after MIT took over, 
they changed their name, possibly to secure a specific domain name that 
would otherwise have by MIT discretion been rejected, but when the Auction 
plans were in place, meant the company could get it's chosen name.

You have given me NOTHING to comment other than to make assumptions.

Your arguments are useless without seeing the details.  If the company is 
so concerned about it's domain name and all you surmise to say is correct, 
then the Supreme Court will no doubt be very interested in hearing the case 
and setting a precedent.

It starts with

Plaintiff:  Company *name* Pty Limited

Respondent:  Melbourne IT Limited
              and
               Australian Domain Name Administration Limited

You seem to know how to use ASIC, look up the ACNs and do something about 
it.  Talk is cheap, talking on mail list sis cheaper and achieves NOTHING.

>So shouldn't they have an obligation to disclose such claim to Common Law
>Mark, Approved but pending Trademark and associated rights?  I would have
>thought that to hide this info would be misleading?
>
>Do you agree?

Nope, how can I agree to something that I see no details of?  For all I 
know you just created to two extracts you proudly displayed.  Even I can 
type lines like that.

FACT, not FICTION.

If you want to waste my time, keep going.  I've got better things to 
do.  If you want support and professional opinion, then give all the facts.