Anonymous writes "Internet Name Group (ING) which has been under the watchful eye of the the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) and auDA following complaints that some .com.au owners had been sent misleading faxes and notices by post by resellers other than their original dealer."

ING's Lawyer has claimed that:

• ING is the owner of the copyright subsisting in certain documents allegedly published by Josh Rowe on the Internet, which concerns ING; and
• Josh has infringed ING's copyright in the documents by reproducing those documents, and communicating them to the public.

In the first instance, they do not believe that copyright subsists in those documents. In their view, the documents cannot properly be classified as literary or other works as required by the Copyright Act 1968.

Even if copyright is taken to subsist in those documents, and even if they are taken to have infringed the copyright of ING (which Josh denies), they suggest that an Australian court will most likely deny copyright protection to ING on public policy grounds.