Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Domain Name Corp Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1269

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission v Domain Name Corp Pty Ltd [2018] FCA 1269

The Court found that the respondents, by sending out notices in the form of renewal notices for existing domain names when they were, in fact, offers for different domain names, engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive in contravention of s 18, and made false or misleading representations in contravention of ss 29(1)(g) and 29(1)(l) of the ACL. Mr Bell was found to be knowingly concerned in and a party to these contraventions. Pecuniary penalties, injunctions, disqualification order, and declaratory relief were appropriate and justified by reference to the facts agreed upon by the parties and applicable legal principles.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
22 August 2018
Procedural Posture
Civil / Final Judgment
Outcome
Declarations made; pecuniary penalties, injunctions, and disqualification order imposed; costs awarded.
Legal Topics
['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'injunctions' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'director Disqualification']
['consumer Law' 'commercial Law'] ['misleading or Deceptive Conduct' 'false or Misleading Representations' 'injunctions' 'pecuniary Penalties' 'director Disqualification']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Civil / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ['Whether the respondents engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct in contravention of s 18 of the ACL.' 'Whether the respondents made false or misleading representations about the benefits and need for services contrary to s 29(1)(g) and 29(1)(l) of the ACL.' 'Whether Steven Bell was knowingly concerned in the contraventions by the corporate respondents.' 'Appropriateness of the Court making declaratory orders.' 'Appropriateness of agreed pecuniary penalties and injunctions.']

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the respondents, by sending out notices in the form of renewal notices for existing domain names when they were, in fact, offers for different domain names, engaged in conduct that was misleading or deceptive or likely to mislead or deceive in contravention of s 18, and made false or misleading representations in contravention of ss 29(1)(g) and 29(1)(l) of the ACL. Mr Bell was found to be knowingly concerned in and a party to these contraventions. Pecuniary penalties, injunctions, disqualification order, and declaratory relief were appropriate and justified by reference to the facts agreed upon by the parties and applicable legal principles.

Court Disposition

Declarations made; pecuniary penalties, injunctions, and disqualification order imposed; costs awarded.

Orders

  • ['First Respondent to pay $1,500,000 to the Commonwealth under s 224 of the ACL.' 'Second Respondent to pay $450,000 to the Commonwealth under s 224 of the ACL.' 'First and Second Respondents restrained for 3 years from sending unsolicited notices (with specified disclosure).' 'Third Respondent restrained for 5...