Lapsed Domain Name Fight Ruled Upon In Australia

Zaphus writes "The Age is reporting that a domain name fight in Australia in which a lapsed domain name was snapped up by another group with the same initials, has been ruled OK by the arbitrator. This is despite the cause of the lapse being the registrar's for failing to process the renewal even though it was paid for. If this stands then it sets an interesting precident in Australia."

Comments

Well...

[MImeKillEr]

.. if the Registrar screwed up (as in this case) why should the original name holder be punished? The registrar should be fined or at least be forced to reimburse the 2nd group (the one that "hijacked" the domain) and the original owner should be granted the name.

This may go towards pushing for a "grace period" before a domain name can be snatched up by another party.

It also goes to show that if you own a domain name an renewal is up, you better make sure your registrar gets it done - even if you've already paid.

Recourse

[MacAndrew]

This sounds like fairly standard law, like the law of what happens when a party in good faith purchases something that was stolen from you. Your recourse is against the thief not the purchaser. (Again, the purchase has to have been in good faith, without knowledge of the illegitimacy of the goods. Things like an excessively low price are a tip-off to bad tricks.)

So the loser's recourse should be against the registrar. They may not have that opportunity, for if the registrar was smart it would have disclaimed liability for negligence in the contract to do the job in the first place. That provision could carry the day. Also, the would-be registrant should be expected to exercise due care to verify the proper registration.

Then again, I could be totally mistaken. YMMV. :)

Re:Recourse

[Henry V .009]

Here in America, a good faith purchase of stolen goods is void. The stolen goods go back to the original owner, and the purchaser's recourse is against the thief.