CASES & DECISIONS

YEAR DECISION
New: All decided cases have been profiled to enable search and filter on selected keywords.
 
Displaying the latest 10 cases
   
ZA2016-00244 INTEX MARKETING LTD vs. DEWAN HATTINGH
  intexpools.co.za - Pending
   
   
ZA2016-00243 WORLD SPORTS BETTING (PTY) LTD vs. DAYNI
  worldsportsbet.co.za - Pending
   
   
ZA2016-00242 NEDBANK LIMITED vs. JAMES SAI
  nedbankgreenback.co.za - Pending
nedbankloan.co.za - Pending
nedbankloans.co.za - Pending
nedbankhomeloan.co.za - Pending
nedbankpersonalloans.co.za - Pending
nedbankcareer.co.za - Pending
nedbankcreditcard.co.za - Pending
nedbankvacancies.co.za - Pending
   
   
ZA2016-00241 DISCOVERY LIMITED vs. FNBEASY
  Decision: Discovery Limited vs. Fnbeasy dicovery.co.za - Transfer
   
   
ZA2016-00240 VERIZON TRADE MARK SERVICES LLC vs. PRIVEN REDDY
  Decision: Verizon Trade Mark Services LLC vs. Priven Reddy verizondigital.co.za - Transfer
   
   
ZA2016-00239 CARDINAL ASSOCIATES, INC vs. JOHN FORTE
  Decision: Cardinal Associates, Inc vs. John Forte optimsm.co.za - Transfer
   
   
ZA2016-00238 VIRTUAL DATES, INC vs. HARGURNAZ SINGH
  Decision: Virtual Dates, Inc vs. Hargurnaz Singh domainking.co.za - Refused
   
   
ZA2016-00237 GRABIT HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD vs. PAUL JANISCH
  Decision: Grabit Holdings (Pty) Ltd vs. Paul Janisch grabit.co.za - Transfer
   
   
ZA2016-00236 JAMES PURDEY & SONS LIMITED vs. DEON VENTER
  Decision: James Purdey & Sons Limited vs. Deon Venter purdey.co.za - Transfer
   
   
ZA2016-00235 FUJIKURA LTD vs. DEWAN HATTINGH
  Decision: Fujikura Ltd vs. Dewan Hattingh fujikura80s.co.za - Transfer
   


notice

DECISIONS MADE BY AN ADJUDICATOR IN TERMS OF THE REGULATIONS WILL BE DISPLAYED ON THIS PAGE AS AND WHEN AVAILABLE.

Regulation 29

(1) An adjudicator must decide a dispute in accordance with the principles of law, on the basis of the Dispute, Response, and Reply, if any, and further statements or documents submitted in accordance with these Regulations.

(2) The Adjudicator must forward its Decision on the dispute to the provider within 14 days of its appointment under regulation 20.

(3) The Decision must be in writing, provide the reasons on which it is based, indicate the date on which it was rendered and identify the name of the Adjudicator.

(4) If three adjudicators consider a Dispute, the consentient views of at least two adjudicators shall constitute the Decision.

(5) If one Adjudicator has a dissentient view, such view should also accompany the Decision.

(6) Decisions and dissentient views must comply with the guidelines as to length set forth in the provider's supplementary procedure.

 

Regulation 9

The possible decisions pursuant to a Dispute before an adjudicator are limited to -

(a) in the case of abusive registrations the refusal of the Dispute or the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant;

(b) in the case of offensive registrations the refusal of the Dispute or the deletion and prohibition of the domain name from future registration;

(c) a refusal of the Dispute as the Dispute constitutes reverse domain name hijacking.

 

Please review the Resources Page for assistance on viewing foreign decisions.