A recently-published empirical analysis of auDRP decisions has identified the factors which are associated with a greater likelihood of a complaint succeeding.

Andrew F. Christie, James Gloster and Sarah Goddard analysed the characteristics and the outcome of all 470 decisions that were made in the first 15 years of the auDRP’s operation. They found that there is a statistically significant greater likelihood of a complaint succeeding where:

• the complaint is based on a trademark rather than on a name
• the complaint is based on a registered trademark rather than on an unregistered trademark
• the respondent files a response rather than defaults
• the case is decided by a 1-member panel rather than by a 3-member panel

The study also found that there is no statistically significant difference in the likelihood of a complaint succeeding by virtue of:

• when the case was filed – the rate at which complaints succeed has not changed over time
• with whom the case was filed – the success rate of cases filed with WIPO is not different from that of cases filed with Resolution Institute
• by whom the case was decided – the rate at which panelists find for the complainant does not differ across the most experienced panelists

The authors of the study conclude that these findings show the auDRP procedure for resolving disputes between trademark owners and domain name registrants, in addition to being fast, cheap and effective, is also fair.

Watch a seminar in which the results of the study explained and discussed.

Read a pre-publication version of the study, which is published in (2019) 30(1) Australian Intellectual Property Journal 4.