domainwatch.org

Wednesday May 8 2002

ACCC obtains injunction against ING

Filed under: Internet Name Group — Josh @ 8:07 pm

ACCC obtains injunction against ING
http://www.itnews.com.au/story.cfm?ID=9718

” …
After the Federal Court hearing in Melbourne Monday, ING released a statement suggesting that it was proceeding ‘with business as usual’, without specifically referring to the undertakings that had been issued in the consent order.

ING was dumped earlier this year as an accredited registrar of .com.au domain names.
… “

from: http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=02/05/08/182936

The following is a transcript of the orders made by Ryan J. in the Federal Court on 6 May 2002:

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
VICTORIA DISTRICT REGISTRY

No. V 220 of 2002

BETWEEN:

AUSTRALIAN COMPETITION AND CONSUMER COMMISSION
Applicant

and

INTERNET NAME PROTECTION PTY LTD (formerly known as OPEN YOUR MIND ADVERTISING PTY LTD) (trading as INTERNET NAME GROUP and formerly as INTERNET NAME PROTECTION) ACN 087 441 450
First Respondent

MARK SPEKTOR
Second Respondent

MINUTES OF CONSENT ORDERS

JUDGE: The Honourable Justice Ryan
DATE OF ORDER: 6 May 2002
WHERE MADE: Melbourne

THE COURT ORDERS BY CONSENT THAT:

Upon the first respondent, by its counsel, undertaking that until the hearing and determination of the proceeding, or until further order:

(1) it will not in Australia or elsewhere, publish, distribute, or display material, by any means whatsoever (including electronic transmission and/or oral communications) in which it:

(a) represents that the letters “bz” in the domain name “.bz” means or refers to “business”;

(b) represents that registration of a domain name in the “.bz” domain indicates the registration of a business;

(c) represents that it has a pre-existing relationship with a person, if in truth it does not, in particular, by stating that there is such a relationship or by describing its notices as “Renewal Advices” or by an invitation to “confirm” a renewal or by addressing its notices to “accounts payable”. The notices it sends to those persons to whom it does not have a pre-existing relationship will include the statement: “You do not have to renew your domain name registration through ING” (such statement to appear in the body of the text (in the same size and font as that text) on the front page of the notices);

(d) represents that it has the authority itself, and itself can provide, the registration or renewal of a customer’s domain name;

(c) represents that it is offering multiple free services, if in truth it is not;

(f) represents that it has a relationship with Melbourne IT that in truth it does not;

(g) represents that it can register “.com.au” domain names on the internet for a period of more than two years;

(h) represents that it is necessary for persons to have its assistance to obtain a registry key;

(i) represents that an application for pre-registration of one of the names “.biz” or “.info” must be made through it;

(j) represents that it is necessary to have access to a “registry key” before a domain name can be renewed, if in truth it is not;

(k) represents there are no statutory warranties as to merchantability or fitness for purpose applicable to services it provides, alternatively that clause 3 of the First Respondent’s Terms and Conditions Applying to Pre-Registration of Domain Names is capable of avoiding the effect of sections 68 and 74 of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth);

(2) any form it uses which bears the logo of Melbourne IT will be accompanied by a statement to the following effect: “This form will be submitted by us to Melbourne IT on your behalf”, such statement to appear in the body of the text (in the same size and font as that text) on the front page of the notice which requests completion of the form;

(3) it will preserve all records required to supply the information referred to in paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Motion, Notice of which is dated 17 April 2002.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1. The Motion, Notice of which is dated 17 April 2002, be otherwise dismissed.

2. Costs be reserved.

3. The Directions Hearing be adjourned to 24 May 2002.

Tuesday May 7 2002

Web name group faces conduct charge

Filed under: Internet Name Group — Josh @ 8:25 pm

Web name group faces conduct charge (no subscription required!)
http://afr.com/it/2002/05/07/FFXWH0I8V0D.html

ING bites back at ACCC claims
http://zdnet.com.au/newstech/ebusiness/story/0,2000024981,20265051,00.htm

” …
Domain name reseller Internet Name Group claims that many of the complaints forming the basis of the ACCC’s recent decision to take legal action against it are outdated.
… “

I’ll let you be the judge …

March 2002

Internet Name Group notice Internet Name Group notice Internet Name Group notice

< Nov 2001
Internet Name Group notice Internet Name Group notice Internet Name Group notice

Internet Name Group notice Internet Name Group notice Internet Name Group notice

Internet Name Group notice Internet Name Group notice

Monday May 6 2002

“Business as usual for ING” – according to ING

Filed under: Internet Name Group — Josh @ 8:40 pm

I’m looking forward to the ACCC’s media release (response).

” …

MEDIA RELEASE

BUSINESS AS USUAL FOR ING

(Melbourne, Australia – 6 May, 2002) Internet Name Group (ING) is pleased to report that it has provided interim undertakings to the Federal Court and the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) regarding its marketing practices following the ACCC+s pplication for interlocutory orders from the Federal Court. ING is hopeful that a speedy final resolution will be reached between the ACCC and ING.

“Since mid-2001 we have been working with the ACCC to ensure that the way we provide and market our services is in line with their requirements,” said ING Director Mark Spektor.

“We kept the ACCC up to date with all changes in our marketing practices and sent all required amendments through on 31 October last year believing we had resolved all issues.

“The recent legal action initiated by the ACCC came as a total surprise. We had not heard from them for six months and understood they were satisfied with our addressing of these issues.

“Many of the complaints on which the allegations are based are not current as they referred to old marketing practices which were amended last year. We would therefore like to reassure the marketplace that we continue to carry on our business at our usual high standard while these issues are being resolved.

“However, we have taken this matter very seriously and will continue to work closely with the ACCC to ensure that our current and future practices meet their requirements,” he continued.

Mr Spektor anticipates that all issues with the ACCC will be resolved. Once the issues are resolved, ING is confident that auDA will reinstate the company as a provisionally accredited registrar of .com.au domain names. In March 2002 at the request of auDA, ING became a signatory to the Interim Code of Conduct which protects consumers. This was prior to the ACCC application.

ING was established in 1999 and is one of Australia’s largest suppliers of Internet names and related services. The company aims to be innovative and pro-active and the first to market new domain name products and services in Australia.

ENDS.

… “

Disclaimer: The domainwatch.org page has been developed using publicly available information. While due care has been exercised to ensure the accuracy and currency of the material contained on this web page, the editor strongly recommends that users exercise their own skill and care with respect to its use and seek professional advice where appropriate. While the information provided is considered to be true and correct at the date of publication, changes in circumstances after the time of publication may impact on the accuracy of the information. The editor will consider requests to correct factual errors if accompanied by reasonable proof of the error(s). © Copyright 2001-2005 - Josh Rowe - josh@email.nu - Powered by WordPress