Adam

The domain that was considered generic (and was restricted by Melb IT) was
still under their control and not auDA at the time of 4th application to
licence it from Melb IT and also when the application for appeal was
lodged - that has been confirmed by both Melb IT and auDA in writing.

It is worthy of note that the restricted list of generic domains were handed
over to auDA also after the application for Trademark was lodged.  The
announcement of the intention to auction by auDA coming days after that.

It would not be appropriate for me to divulge publicly the exact name of the
company or domain without potentially prejudicing the auction for same that
is currently in progress and/or future legal avenues of pursuit, which look
like very much a probability.

The information provided is accurate in every way and can be verified

But thanks for your comments and perspective

Phil Wright



-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Todd [mailto:auda§todd.inoz.com]
Sent: Friday, 5 July 2002 1:28 PM
To: dns§lists.auda.org.au
Subject: RE: [DNS] Very Concerned RE Trademark and IP issues with
'Generic Auctions'



>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.




---------------------------------------------------------------------------
List policy, unsubscribing and archives => http://www.auda.org.au/list/dns/
Please do not retransmit articles on this list without permission of the
author, further information at the above URL.  (333 subscribers.)