Intecq Limited, an Australian company, filed a UDRP against NHC Advisors Pty Ltd, the registrant of the domain name Ebet.com.au.



Intecq claimed rights to the "EBET" mark and another mark containing "EBET," but the panelist found that the mark did not acquire secondary meaning as it is a descriptive term for electronic betting or ebet placement.

The WIPO panelist determined that there was no bad faith in the registration or use of the domain by the Respondent and denied the transfer of the domain to the Complainant.

The Complainant accused the Respondent of not meeting the requirements for owning the disputed domain name, which could imply bad faith under the auDRP. However, the panel found that the Complainant failed to provide any argument or proof to support this claim. Therefore, the Panel did not find that the disputed domain name was registered or used in bad faith.

Additionally, the Respondent requested that the Panel make a finding of reverse domain name hijacking because they believed the Complaint was brought in bad faith. However, the Panel did not agree with this allegation and denied the Complaint based on the evidence provided.

It's astonishing that Intecq Limited thought they could strong-arm NHC Advisors Pty Ltd into relinquishing the Ebet.com.au domain name. The complainant's failure to demonstrate trademark rights and bad faith is a clear indication of a flawed strategy.
I've seen numerous cases where companies try to bully domain registrants into giving up their legitimate domain names. The WIPO panelist's decision serves as a reminder that UDRP proceedings require concrete evidence, not just baseless claims. Intecq Limited's actions can be seen as a form of reverse domain name hijacking, and it's surprising that the panel didn't find in favor of the respondent on this count.