Hancock Prospecting LOSE their auDRP WIPO Domain Name complaint against Hancock.com.au with RDNH charge!

Although today is April Fools Day, the following is not a joke.

In December 2025, we wrote this article, detailing how Hancock Prospecting had hired a GoDaddy Domain Broker to try and acquire the domain name Hancock.com.au for a client of DBR Digital Assets.

DBR Digital Assets considered the offers as “low-ball”.

Belinda Breakspear from McCullough Robertson then went on to threaten that if our client didn’t engage with her “more”, she threatened to file an auDRP WIPO Complaint to potentially take the domain name away from our client without any form of payment or compensation.

We responded to Ms Breakspear that should she move forward in filing an auDRP WIPO Complaint, she would be guaranteed to lose and probably found guilty of REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING.

Fast forward to February 2026, and she went ahead and filed the auDRP WIPO Complaint. We engaged Erhan Karabardak from Mills IP to write the auDRP WIPO Defence.

The defence appeared to have rattled Ms Breakspear, because, soon after, in March 2026, she instructed WIPO to a “suspension” of the proceedings in an attempt to “make another offer”.

We REJECTED the suspension of the auDRP WIPO process and desperate attempt to make the same low-ball offer.

We stated to Ms Breakspear and to WIPO that we wanted to see the auDRP WIPO Complaint through to it’s rightful conclusion.

Today, 1st April 2026, we can confirm the auDRP WIPO Complaint from Ms Breakspear and Hancock Prospecting FAILED and the domain complaint is DENIED by all three WIPO Panelists (Case Details for WIPO Complaint Denied)

But wait, there’s more…

The majority of the panelists also noted a set of circumstances that are indicative of a complaint “brought in bad faith” and relevant to this case including:

• the complainant had known from the beginning that its rights in the domain name were not exclusive, that the domain name was generic, and that the domain name described the activities for which the respondent used it;
• the complaint was silent on key matters, riddled with unexplained inconsistencies, and contained
  numerous unsubstantiated and potentially false claims; and
• the complainant set out to harass the respondent and to procure the domain name “by fair means or foul”.

The majority of the WIPO Panel found that the Complainant brought the Complaint in BAD FAITH, in an attempt to REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACK the domain from the owner (Respondent).

As we asked in the last article (Hancock.com.au Part 2)…. It would be interesting to know how much money Belinda Breakspear from McCullough Robertson has billed her client Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd for all of this.

Please leave this field empty

When is the next Assets Show?

Sign up to receive new episodes of The Assets Show in your inbox.

This field is required.

We don’t spam!

Check your inbox or spam folder to confirm your subscription.