Disputes resolution (2021-2022)
Administered by the Commission, the dispute resolution service is an alternative to litigation and can be used when someone wants to dispute a domain name registration as they assert that they have a better claim to it.
Number of expert decisions
Our experts issued 10 decisions during the reporting year. (*Some decisions relate to matters filed in the previous reporting year.)
Expert decisions continue to be published by NZLII at http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZDNC/
39 submissions were received in the reporting year. Of those:
expert decisions (1 dismissed, 2 transferred).
are still on-going.
have settled outside of mediation (where parties sorted it out themselves).
disputes were withdrawn as no fees were paid.
were wrongly filed involving Incorrect use of the Service.
Type of relationship between the filing parties in 2021/2022 included: Competitor, Domain Name Speculator, Generic registration (such as two-three letter combos), No relationship, Personal relationship, Tribute/criticism, i.e. fan or critic, Typosquatting, and Web developer.
Forward work with the DRS
We opened the pilot for online dispute resolution in March 2022 for domain disputes. Parties will be able to trial e-negotiation and e-mediation during 2022, and then we will review this offering.
Case study: wuerth.nz (Result - transferred)
Complainant: Würth international AG
Respondent: Zhu Xumei (who registered the domain name in 2019.)
The expert determined that this was an unfair registration because the complainant had rights in respect of the trademark “Würth”; the spelling of “Wuerth” is a recognised transcription of the spelling of “Würth” (‘ue’ used to replace the umlaut in ‘ü’); and the complainant had provided sufficient evidence to show the respondent had registered the domain name for the purpose of sale for profit.
Case study: havaianas.co.nz (Result - dismissed)
Complainant: ALPARGATAS, S.A.
Respondent: FluiD Multimedia
The complainant alleged that due to the notoriety of the 60-year-old brand it could be inferred that the registration was either a blocking registration or was made with the purpose of disrupting the complainant’s business. The expert found that there was not sufficient evidence to find an unfair registration noting that the name was registered in 2005 and only acts or omissions within three years of the complaint could be considered.