Decisión del Panel Administrativo nº DAU2019-0007 of WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, May 22, 2019 (case R S Capital Partners Pty Ltd t/a My SMSF v. Adviser IT Ltd)
| Resolution Date | May 22, 2019 |
| Issuing Organization | WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center |
| Decision | Complaint denied |
| Dominio | Australia (.au) |
The Complainant is R S Capital Partners Pty Ltd trading as My SMSF of North Sydney, New South Wales, Australia, represented by Gupta & Co. Pty Ltd., Australia.
The Respondent is Adviser IT Ltd of Miranda, New South Wales, Australia
The disputed domain name [mysmsf.com.au] is registered with TPP Wholesale Pty Ltd.
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 26, 2019. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to TPP Wholesale Pty Ltd a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On March 28, 2019, TPP Wholesale Pty Ltd transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent was the current registrant but disclosing contact information for the disputed domain name that differed from that provided in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 8, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant replied in an email communication on April 16, 2019, declining to amend the Complaint.
The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”), the Rules for .au Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .au Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 16, 2019. The Respondent’s IT supplier, the Complainant and the Complainant’s authorized representative exchanged a series of emails regarding the matter on April 18, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was May 6, 2019. The Response was filed with the Center on April 28, 2019.
The Center appointed Matthew Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on May 8, 2019. 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, paragraph 7.
The Complainant creates deeds and associated documentation for self-managed super funds (“SMSFs”). It also advises in relation to the creation, maintenance and management of SMSFs, particularly in relation to SMSF investment. The Complainant registered the business name “My SMSF” on May 13, 2015. The Complainant is the owner of Australian registered trademark number 1865433 for MY SMSF, registered from August 11, 2017, in respect of services in class 36 including self-managed superannuation fund administration. A related company named My SMSF Pty Ltd was registered on January 17, 2019.
The Respondent is Adviser IT Limited, an unlisted Australian public company. Its former names are Adviser IT Pty Ltd and Prospera Pty Ltd. It was registered on October 21, 2003.
The disputed domain name was registered on April 22, 2005. The disputed domain name does not resolve to any active website, rather, it is passively held.
A “self managed superannuation fund”[1 ] is a type of fund defined in sections 17A and 17B of the Australian Superannuation Industry (Supervision) Act 1993. The acronym “SMSF” is used to refer to a self-managed superannuation fund in certain other defined terms in that Act and on the website of the Australian Taxation Office, which regulates this type of fund.
The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s MY SMSF trademark. An ordinary person dealing with the Complainant’s business “My SMSF” would expect the business’s website to be located at the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent does not appear to operate any business...
To continue reading
Request your trial