.AU Domain Dispute: auDRP Guide for .com.au

This guide is for complainants and respondents in Australian domain disputes. If you have received an auDRP complaint, go straight to the response section — the deadline is 20 calendar days and the page limit is 10. If you are unsure whether the auDRP applies, start with the comparison against the UDRP.

Quick answer: what the auDRP is and who it applies to

The .au Dispute Resolution Policy (auDRP) is the mandatory administrative procedure for resolving disputes over .au domain names, including .com.au, .net.au, .org.au, and .au direct registrations. A complainant must prove three elements: the domain is identical or confusingly similar to a name or trademark in which the complainant has rights; the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests; and the domain was registered or used in bad faith. The response deadline is 20 calendar days from commencement. Complaints and responses are limited to 10 pages, excluding annexes. Provider fees start at AUD $1,500 for a single-member panel and AUD $3,000 for a three-member panel. The remedy is transfer or cancellation, and there are no damages.

Key facts at a glance

What is the auDRP?

The .au namespace and auDA’s role

The .au country-code top-level domain is administered by auDA, the Australian Domain Name Administrator. auDA is the government-endorsed policy authority and industry self-regulatory body for .au. It develops domain policy, accredits registrars, and facilitates the auDRP.

The auDRP applies to names in the .au namespace: .com.au, .net.au, .org.au, .id.au, .asn.au, and the newer .au direct registrations. It is incorporated into the registration agreement for those names.

Eligibility and the .au direct namespace

To hold a .au domain, the registrant must meet auDA’s eligibility and allocation rules. For .com.au, the registrant must be an Australian registered company, a trading entity, or an owner of an Australian trademark. For .net.au, similar rules apply. For .org.au, the registrant must be a non-profit.

The .au direct namespace, launched in 2022, allows registrations directly under .au (for example, brand.au). Existing registrants of matching .com.au or .net.au names were given priority allocation during a six-month window. The auDRP applies to .au direct registrations in the same way as other .au names.

Eligibility matters for complainants too. A complainant who wins an auDRP case must be eligible to hold the domain. If the complainant is not eligible, a transfer order may be impossible to implement.

The auDRP 2016-01 policy

The current policy is auDRP 2016-01. It is modelled on the UDRP but has Australian-specific features: the “registered or used” test, the page limits, the provider structure, and the eligibility rules.

The auDRP Rules and each provider’s Supplemental Rules govern the procedure. The Resolution Institute Supplemental Rules (effective 1 January 2025) set out the complaint and response requirements, including the 10-page limit and the 20-day response deadline.

.au dispute? The response window is 20 days and the page limit is 10. We handle auDRP cases through Resolution Institute and WIPO. Book an auDRP review →

The three auDRP elements

The auDRP applies the same three-element structure as the UDRP, with one critical difference at the third element.

Identical or confusingly similar

The domain must be identical or confusingly similar to a name or trademark in which the complainant has rights. The threshold is low. The .au suffix is disregarded. Small additions — a hyphen, a letter, a generic word — usually do not avoid similarity.

Because the auDRP refers to a “name or trademark,” the complainant may rely on a company name, business name, or trademark. The rights must be enforceable in Australia or otherwise recognised.

No rights or legitimate interests

The complainant must show the registrant has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain. The auDRP recognises the same safe harbours as the UDRP: bona fide use before notice, being commonly known by the domain, and legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

Australian panels have applied these safe harbours consistently. A respondent with a genuine business, documented preparations, or a credible fair-use story can defeat the second element.

Registered or used in bad faith

Quick answer: The auDRP requires bad faith in registration or use, not both. This is a critical difference from the UDRP, which requires bad-faith registration and bad-faith use. A domain registered innocently but later used to target the complainant can be caught by the auDRP.

The auDRP test is disjunctive: the domain must have been registered or used in bad faith. This means:

• A domain registered in good faith by a former partner and later used to divert the complainant’s customers can satisfy the third element.
• A domain acquired in bad faith but not yet used can satisfy the third element.
• The panel assesses the totality of the circumstances, not a rigid conjunctive test.

This difference is strategically important. It gives complainants a route that the UDRP does not, and it gives respondents a warning: an innocent registration does not immunise later abusive use.

The auDRP is not a copy of the UDRP. The “registered or used” test changes the strategy for both sides. Ask us to assess your case →

auDRP vs UDRP: where Australian practice diverges

The 10-page limit

The 10-page limit is tighter than it sounds. It excludes annexes, but it forces the complainant and respondent to be disciplined. A complaint that spends five pages on the complainant’s corporate history has five pages left for the three elements and the evidence schedule. The best auDRP submissions are structured around the elements, not the parties’ backgrounds.

Costs and panel composition

The provider fee is AUD $1,500 for a single-member panel and AUD $3,000 for a three-member panel. The complainant pays the fee. There is no equivalent of the UDRP’s rule allowing a respondent to elect a three-member panel and pay half the difference; under the auDRP, the complainant chooses the panel composition and pays for it.

Standing and eligibility: who can file

Australian trademark rights

A registered Australian trademark is the strongest basis for standing. The registration must be in force and must cover the goods or services connected to the domain. A trademark registered with IP Australia is the usual evidence.

The auDRP also refers to a “name” in which the complainant has rights. This can include a company name, a business name, or a trading name. The rights must be enforceable and must predate the domain or be targeted by it.

Common-law and business-name rights

Common-law rights arising from use can support an auDRP complaint, but they are harder to prove. The complainant must show that the name has become distinctive through use and identifies the complainant’s goods or services. Evidence includes sales, advertising, media coverage, and consumer recognition.

A registered business name is not a trademark. It is evidence of use, but it does not by itself establish exclusive rights. Panels weigh business-name evidence alongside other factors.

Eligibility to hold a .au domain

Even if the complainant wins, it must be eligible to hold the domain under auDA’s rules. A foreign complainant without an Australian trademark or entity may obtain a transfer order but be unable to implement it. Complainants should confirm eligibility before filing.

auDRP eligibility is not automatic. We test standing and .au eligibility before you file. Assess your standing →

Choosing an auDRP provider

Resolution Institute

Resolution Institute is an approved auDRP provider. Its Supplemental Rules (effective 1 January 2025) set out the complaint and response requirements: electronic submission, 10-page limits, a cover sheet, and a five-day compliance review. The response is due 20 calendar days after the date of commencement.

Resolution Institute’s fee is AUD $1,500 for a single-member panel and AUD $3,000 for a three-member panel.

WIPO

WIPO is also an approved auDRP provider. It applies the auDRP Policy and Rules, together with its own WIPO Supplemental Rules for .au Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy. WIPO’s case management and panelist roster are the same infrastructure used for UDRP cases.

WIPO has handled a significant number of auDRP cases in 2025 and 2026, including Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited v. Domain Invest Pty Ltd (DAU2026-0004) and DSI Global Holdings Pty Ltd v. Kevin Carne (DAU2026-0019).

Provider comparison and fees

Provider choice affects case management and timing. We match the provider to the case and the respondent. Ask us which fits →

Filing an auDRP complaint

Complaint contents and page limit

The complaint must include:

• The complainant’s details and authorised representative.
• The disputed domain name(s) and the .au second-level domain.
• The rights relied on: trademark, company name, business name, or other enforceable rights.
• The three-element analysis.
• The evidence, in numbered annexes.
• The remedy sought: transfer or cancellation.
• The certification.

The complaint is limited to 10 pages, excluding annexes. This forces discipline. The strongest complaints devote most of the page budget to the elements and the evidence schedule.

Evidence

Useful evidence includes:

• Trademark registration certificates and proof of use.
• Business name registration and trading evidence.
• Screenshots of the respondent’s website, with dates and URLs.
• WHOIS records.
• Correspondence showing an offer to sell, blocking, or disruption.
• Evidence of confusion.
• Evidence of a pattern of bad-faith registrations.

Compliance review

Resolution Institute reviews the complaint for administrative compliance within five calendar days. If there are deficiencies, the complainant has five calendar days to correct them. If the deficiencies are not corrected, the complaint is deemed withdrawn without prejudice.

The registrar lock

After the complaint is notified, the registrar locks the domain. The lock prevents transfer during the proceeding. The domain continues to resolve unless the panel orders otherwise.

The auDRP response: 20 calendar days

The deadline

The respondent has 20 calendar days from the date of commencement to file a response. The date of commencement is the date the provider completes its responsibilities in sending the complaint to the respondent.

There is no automatic extension equivalent to the UDRP’s four-day extension. Extensions are at the provider’s discretion and are granted only in exceptional circumstances.

The 10-page response limit

The response is limited to 10 pages, excluding annexes. The response should be structured around the three elements:

1. No confusing similarity — the mark is descriptive or weak, the domain’s dominant element is different.
2. Rights or legitimate interests — bona fide use, commonly known, fair use.
3. No bad faith — priority, genuine reason for the name, no targeting, no commercial gain from confusion.

The page limit is tight. A response that spends pages on the respondent’s business history without connecting it to the elements will fail.

Default and panel decisions

If the respondent does not respond, the panel decides on the complaint and the record. The panel may draw adverse inferences. Default almost always favours the complainant.

Australian panels have repeatedly emphasised that a respondent’s silence does not relieve the complainant of proving all three elements. But in practice, an unrebutted complaint with plausible evidence usually succeeds.

Received an auDRP complaint? You have 20 calendar days. We review the complaint and build a focused, 10-page response. Book a deadline review →

The panel decision

The panel can:

• Transfer the domain to the complainant.
• Cancel the domain registration.
• Deny the complaint.

The panel decides on the written record. There is no hearing. The decision is published.

Costs: The panel may order costs in exceptional circumstances, but the general rule is that each party bears its own costs. The auDRP does not award damages.

Reverse domain name hijacking in .au

The test

RDNH is available under the auDRP. The panel can declare RDNH if the complaint was brought in bad faith or was an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The test is similar to the UDRP: the complainant knew or should have known that the complaint would fail, or brought the complaint for an improper purpose.

Recent auDRP RDNH findings

In Hancock Prospecting Pty Limited v. Domain Invest Pty Ltd (WIPO Case No. DAU2026-0004, 30 March 2026), a three-member WIPO panel denied Hancock Prospecting’s complaint over hancock.com.au and found reverse domain name hijacking. The panel found that the complainant had failed to establish the elements and that the complaint was brought in circumstances that warranted an RDNH declaration.

The decision is significant because it shows that auDRP panels are willing to find RDNH even against well-resourced complainants. It also illustrates the importance of pre-filing assessment: a complaint that cannot satisfy the auDRP test exposes the complainant to an RDNH finding.

Other 2025–2026 auDRP decisions show the range of issues panels confront: disputes between family members over a domain (the MelbourneIndoorPlants.com.au matter), and cases where a respondent’s legitimate business use defeated the complaint.

Is the complaint abusive? auDRP panels have found RDNH in 2026. We assess whether an RDNH counterclaim is viable and how to plead it. Discuss an RDNH strategy →

The .au direct namespace and priority holds

The .au direct namespace allows registrations directly under .au. Existing registrants of matching .com.au or .net.au names were given priority during a six-month allocation window. If a priority holder did not register the .au direct name, it became available to the general public.

For complainants, .au direct registrations are subject to the auDRP in the same way as other .au names. The three elements apply. The eligibility rules apply. The 20-day response and 10-page limits apply.

For respondents, a .au direct registration that matches a complainant’s mark is vulnerable if the complainant can show bad faith. But priority and genuine use remain strong defences.

Costs and timeline

Illustrative auDRP decisions

Hancock Prospecting v. Domain Invest (DAU2026-0004)

A three-member WIPO panel denied Hancock Prospecting’s complaint over hancock.com.au and found RDNH. The decision illustrates that a well-resourced complainant can still fail if the elements are not made out, and that RDNH is a real risk in auDRP cases.

Lesson: Pre-filing assessment matters. A complaint that cannot satisfy the auDRP test exposes the complainant to an RDNH finding.

DSI Global Holdings v. Kevin Carne (DAU2026-0019)

A WIPO auDRP case filed in July 2026. The decision illustrates the standard procedural path: complaint, compliance, notification, response, panel, decision.

Lesson: The 20-day response window and 10-page limits shape the strategy on both sides.

Family disputes and legitimate use

The MelbourneIndoorPlants.com.au matter involved two brothers and their corporate entities. It illustrates that auDRP disputes can arise from business relationships, not only from classic cybersquatting.

Lesson: The auDRP is not a general commercial court. Panels assess the three elements, not the fairness of the underlying business relationship.

Complainant checklist

• Rights: Australian trademark, company name, business name, or other enforceable rights.
• Confusing similarity: The domain is identical or confusingly similar; the .au suffix is disregarded.
• No legitimate interest: Prima facie case based on WHOIS, website use, parking, and any known relationship.
• Bad faith registration or use: Evidence of targeting at registration or abusive use at any point.
• Eligibility: You are eligible to hold the domain under auDA rules.
• Provider: Resolution Institute or WIPO; fee ready.
• Page limit: Complaint is within 10 pages, excluding annexes.
• Evidence file: Numbered annexes with dates and sources.
• RDNH risk: The complaint is not overreaching or abusive.

Ready to file an auDRP complaint? We assess rights, bad faith, and eligibility before you commit. Start an auDRP assessment →

Respondent checklist

• Deadline: 20 calendar days from commencement.
• Page limit: Response within 10 pages, excluding annexes.
• Rights: Is the complainant’s mark or name enforceable?
• Legitimate interest: Bona fide use, commonly known, fair use.
• Bad faith: Priority, genuine reason for the name, no targeting.
• Eligibility: Are you eligible to hold the domain?
• RDNH: Is the complaint abusive?
• File on time. Do not default.

Received an auDRP complaint? Do not ignore it. Book a deadline review →

How counsel.domains can help

If you are planning an auDRP complaint, we test the three elements against the evidence and confirm your eligibility to hold the domain.

If you have received an auDRP complaint, we review the 20-day deadline, build a focused 10-page response, and assess RDNH.

If the case involves .au direct registrations, we assess priority and allocation issues.

counsel.domains Domain name disputes, worldwide. Talk to counsel about a .au dispute → · [email protected]

Disclaimer: This website provides general information about domain name dispute resolution. It is not legal advice and does not create a professional relationship. Procedures and fees change; check the relevant policy and provider before acting. counsel.domains is not affiliated with auDA, Resolution Institute, WIPO, or any registry or dispute-resolution provider.