Easypay Limited v Vandeyar [2025] NZDNC 110103

We publish case summaries of expert determinations on our website to provide a better understanding of how experts reach their decisions and how the dispute resolution scheme policy applies in practice to .nz domain disputes. 

Easypay — dismissed — rights

Background

This case is unusual because the respondent didn’t respond to or defend the claim, yet the claim was dismissed. The claimant did not meet the requirements for transferring the domain name.

The parties involved

Claimant: Easypay Limited

The claimant company operates a payment gateway platform for small retailers. The company’s director registered the claim in August 2025. They hadn’t registered “Easypay” as a trade mark. However, they use “EasyPay” frequently in trade.

Respondent: Shailen Vandeyar

The respondent had registered <easypay.co.nz> in 2023. 

Negotiations

Prior to submitting the claim, the claimant tried to purchase the domain name from the respondent, but the offer was rejected. 

The claim

The claimant claimed that it had common law rights in the name “EasyPay”, and that the respondent had no legitimate interest in the name.

The claimant argued:

  • It had acquired the name through active commercial use, goodwill, and commercial registration.

  • The respondent’s registration would prevent the claimant from using its own brand. This would also cause clear conflict within the payment technology industry. 

  •  The text exchange revealed that the respondent was interested in selling the name.

To determine whether the domain name should be transferred, the expert, Jane Glover, considered the claimant’s arguments:

  1. Had the claimant used the name in a way that would grant it common law rights?

  2. Did the respondent’s offer to sell the domain name constitute bad faith?

  3. Was the respondent’s registration and use of the domain name an ‘unfair registration’?

The Expert’s conclusions 

The Expert concluded that the claimant did not have a right to the name, noting:

  1. There was no evidence that a substantial portion of the public associated the claimant’s services with the name “EasyPay”. The claimant did not produce evidence of sales, advertising, or the extent of use. There was no evidence of use in trade prior to the claimant’s registration as a company.

  2. The claimant had sought to sell the domain name. However, that was not material to the question of bad faith. Furthermore, the text exchange showed that the respondent intended to use the domain name if the claimant did not accept the selling price.

  3. The respondent had registered the domain name before the claimant existed. That meant the claimant had no rights at the time of registration. 

Is Easypay descriptive or a generic term?

The Expert did not find it necessary to formally assess whether the term was generic or descriptive. However, the Expert stated that the name has at the very least… descriptive elements. The name alluded to an easy way to pay for goods or services. There was no evidence of a distinctive secondary meaning.

The Expert noted that descriptive names are harder to protect than distinctive trading names under the ‘passing off’ tort.

Decision

The Expert found that the claimant:

  • had not proven rights in a name similar or identical to the domain name; and

  • had not established that, in the hands of the respondent, the domain name is an unfair registration.

The Expert dismissed the claim.

You can read the decision on the NZLII website.   

 

DNC news