Bifalgorithm post · Property · In short, a more substantive use of the word

Bad Faith

Bad Faith (Property · In short, a more substantive use of the word) — "Domain Name Registered and Used in Bad Faith 6.10 The Complainant has not satisfied this…

Ideas in this flowchart

  • Whether the domain name was registered and used in bad faith
  • Paragraph 4(b)(i) requires proof that the domain name was acquired primarily for sale to the Complainant
  • Complainant’s assertion and supporting evidence
  • Respondent’s position
  • Panel’s assessment of the evidence
  • The Respondent allegedly offered to sell the domain name for $25,000
  • The Complainant provided no evidence of the alleged communications or offer
  • The Respondent admitted offering to sell the domain name only after the Complainant solicited the offer
  • The Respondent stated that he acquired the domain name five years earlier in good faith
  • Because the price was not disputed, the Panel assumed it was $25,000 or more than the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses
  • The evidence was consistent with the Complainant’s contention but did not prove it
  • The same evidence was equally consistent with the Respondent’s good-faith explanation
  • The Complainant failed to meet the burden of proof on bad-faith registration and use
Feed/

Bad Faith

Channel

Property

1 page

"Domain Name Registered and Used in Bad Faith 6.10 The Complainant has not satisfied this Administrative Panel that the Respondent registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. The Complainant asserted that the Respondent offered to sell the domain name to the Complainant for $25,000, but the Complainant provided no evidence in support of this assertion. In particular, the Complainant provided no evidence of the Respondent’s alleged communications with the Complainant on this issue. The Respondent admitted that he offered to sell the domain name to the Complainant, but only after the Complainant solicited that offer. (The Respondent did not specify the price at which he offered to sell the domain name, but he did not dispute the Complainant’s assertion of $25,000, so this Administrative Panel assumes the offered price was for that amount, or at least for an amount in excess of the Respondent’s out -of-pocket expenses.) Although this evidence is consistent with the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling it to the Complainant, as required by paragraph 4(b)(i), this evidence does not prove that. This evidence is equally consistent with the Respondent’s contention that he acquired the domain name five years ago in good faith. In the absence of any evidence whatsoever from the Complainant going to the assertion of the Respondent’s offer to sell the domain name, this Administrative Panel finds that the Complainant has not met the burden of proof on this issue."

Flowchart preview
Series cover
👍
0
0 comments0 shares

Sign in to view and post comments.