Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº DNAME2009-00001 of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, June 18, 2009 (case BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd. v. Peter Gregory)

• Judge: Andrew Frederick Christie
• Resolution Date: June 18, 2009
• Issuing Organization: WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center
• Dominio: Country domains

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd. v. Peter Gregory

Case No. DNAME2009-00001

1. The Parties

The Complainant is BHP Billiton Innovation Pty Ltd. of Melbourne, Australia, represented by Griffith Hack of Australia.

The Respondent is Peter Gregory of Perth, Australia, represented by IP Strategies International of Australia.

2. The Registration and Registrar

The disputed domain name [bhpbilliton.name] is registered with Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 3, 2009. On April 6, 2009 the Center transmitted by email to Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 6, 2009 and April 8, 2009 Intercosmos Media Group d/b/a directNIC.com transmitted by email to the Center its verification responses confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .NAME Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (the “ERDRP”), the Rules for the Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (the “ERDRP Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Eligibility Requirements Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental ERDRP Rules”).

In accordance with the ERDRP Rules, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 28, 2009. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 18, 2009. The Response was received by the Center on May 17, 2009.

The Center appointed Andrew Frederick Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on June 3, 2009. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules.

After receiving a copy of the Complaint from the Complainant, but before formal Notification of Commencement of Proceeding by the Center, the Respondent sent to the Center, copying the Complainant, a number of emails offering explanation for certain actions by the Respondent, and proposing a means for resolving the dispute. These emails elicited a number of communications by the representative of the Complainant to the Center in response. After formal Notification of Commencement of Proceeding, the Respondent sent further emails to the Center. Prior to submission of a formal Response, the Respondent’s representative communicated with the Center stating that the Respondent’s pre- and post-Notification communications and the Complainant’s responses thereto, should not form part of the record of evidence in the case, because they relate to efforts to settle the dispute. In response, the Center stated that it is for the Panel, once appointed, to determine whether such communications are to be admitted into the record of evidence and, if so, whether additional procedural steps are required. Given the concessions contained in the Response, as described below, it is not necessary for this Panel to determine whether or not any of these communications should be formally admitted into the record of evidence.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a wholly-owned subsidiary of BHP Billiton Limited, holding some of BHP Billliton Limited’s intellectual property. BHP Billiton Limited forms one part of the BHP Billiton Group, which resulted from the DLC merger of BHP Limited (now BHP Billiton Limited) and Billiton Plc (now BHP Billiton Plc). The BHP Billiton Group is the world’s...