A few days ago, I received a complaint from auDA against the domain name Thinkspace.com.au(.)
It’s what happened next that is not only shocking, but once again demonstrates the mysterious auDA Complaints Team making personal decisions in regards to policy, instead of following it to the letter.
Two months ago, on 18 March, the generic domain name “thinkspace.com.au” dropped. No one bothered to buy it at the drop process, and it’s clear the previous Registrant no longer wanted it, so I checked IP Australia to make sure there was no trademark on the name.
As you can clearly see above, no one had bothered to renew the trademark for “thinkspace” so I went ahead and registered the domain name.
According to UrbanDictionary.com, the generic term “thinkspace” means;
Against the complaint from auDA, I replied to my Registrar that there were NO trademarks in Australia for the generic term.
auDA wrote back;
auDA Case: XXXXXX
Domain Name(s): thinkspace.com.auWe have reviewed the registrants response (included below) that they have registered this licence for monetisation purposes and have determined that that this licence was registered in breach of Schedule C, 3b of the Domain Name Eligibility and Allocation Policy Rules for the Open 2LDs (https://www.auda.org.au/policies/index-of-published-policies/2012/2012-04/) which states that a domain name which is, or incorporates, an entity name, personal name or brand name in existence at the time of the registration cannot be monetised.
We refer to Australian Trade Mark #1599750 (https://search.ipaustralia.gov.au/trademarks/search/view/1599750?q=think+space) which predates this domain name licence.
Accordingly, please place the domain name into policy delete by no later than 5:00 PM, XX/05/2020 and advise the registrant of our decision. Please notify auDA once this has been completed.
Please advise the registrant that under the 2012-01 – Registrant Review Panel Rules policy (https://www.auda.org.au/policies/index-of-published-policies/2012/2012-01/), if the registrant believes auDA policy has been misapplied in the decision to delete a domain name, they may request an Internal Review of the initial decision where they can explain what auDA policy has been applied incorrectly, or what auDA policy should have been applied and was not. Any request for an Internal Review must be done while the domain name is in the fourteen day pending delete state.
If a registrant is not satisfied with the result of the Internal Review they may then request an external review by making an application to the Registrant Review Panel.
auDA Compliance Team
I didn’t buy the domain name because it consisted of “two words”, I purchased it because “thinkspace” is a single-term, which means “the space that you can hold in your mind at the same time”.
I clearly checked there was NO TRADEMARK for the term “thinkspace” and then purchased the domain name.
Yet, the “mysterious” auDA Complaints Team member chose to delete my name over a two-word “think space” trademark instead of the lapsed single-worded “thinkspace” trademark I sent them.
“Thinkspace” did NOT incorporate an entity name, personal name or brand name in existence at the time of the registration, so it CAN be monetised.
Is this following auDA Policy?
Or…
Is this one-single-person’s personal opinion at auDA.
Judge, jury, and executioner. As usual.
I will be requesting an internal review about this domain and will let you know the outcome.
This is an interesting one. A generic “phrase” or two separate words?
Doesn’t .au have a dispute resolution mechanism “auDRP”?
How on earth is one auDA staff person deciding trademark issues?
I’m guessing lawyers have cottoned on that it is easier and cheaper to lobby auDA to delete a name as opposed to filing a proper dispute or buying the name.
This appears a horrible decision on the surface however your reliance on the notion that “thinkspace” is a single-term, which means “the space that you can hold in your mind at the same time” is a not going to cut it. Check a dictionary for thinkspace it is not a word, it is two
Having said that I hear a lot of negative chat about auda. Good luck with this
Who decides if I’m using it as the single term or as two different dictionary words? One single person and their personal opinion at auDA?
I don’t think it matters if this is one word or a two word phrase.
The only question is whether this is so obvious a squat that auDA should be able to come in without even a dispute taking place. Anyone would think this is microsoftt.com.au the way auDA is acting.
I think the complainant would have little chance of succeeding in an auDRP or at court and no way should auDA be acting for them here.