The San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (“Complainant”), which is known As BART and owns the domain Bart.org and Bart.gov, just won the rights to the domain name Bart.net
The sole panelist Dennis A. Foster awarded that the domain name which was registered initially in 1995 and has been sold and resold by a number of entities until Respondent acquired the name in June 2015 where is now going to a non-resolving page.
The panelist also took note that within days of acquiring the domain name in June 2015 the owner of Bart.net offered it sell it to the Complainant for $11,000
Here are the highlights:
Complainant is a United States governmental agency that operations public commuter rail services to over 300,000 riders per day in the San Francisco Bay Area.
Complainant’s services are provided under a service mark, BART, that is an acronym for a portion of its name and was registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) in 1973.
Complainant also owns the <bart.gov> domain name, through which it uses a website to extensively advertise and promote its services. Moreover, Complainant owns <bart.org>, which resolves to the website found at <bart.gov>.
It appears to the Panel that Complainant has put forth a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, based upon Complainant’s ownership of rights in an identical service mark and the lack of evidence that Complainant has ever licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use that mark.
Respondent’s rebuttal to Complainant’s prima facie case centers around the notion that the disputed domain name is a generic term — i.e, “Bart” is a short form of the common proper name “Bartholomew”— and that Respondent’s business is to buy and resell it and other similar generic domain names, a practice that prior Policy panels have found to constitute a legitimate interest in such names.
The Panel agrees with Respondent that such panels have deemed the business of buying and reselling domain names to be a legitimate enterprise for the purposes of scrutiny under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
However, the Panel concludes that many of those prior Policy panels, while acknowledging the purchase and resale of domain names as generally legitimate, require that in each case the specific disputed domain name must be examined relative to that general practice to determine whether rights or legitimate interests obtain in that name.
That examination is particularly appropriate when a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a valid trademark or service mark, no matter how generic the composition of the mark.
In this case, the Panel notes that the BART mark was registered and Complainant has been in operation since 1973.
Both of those circumstances arose in the country of Respondent’s residence and occurred more than forty years before Respondent purchased the disputed domain name.
Moreover, while it is a stretch for the Panel to believe that Respondent was unaware of Complainant or its mark before said purchase, certainly minimal effort in running such a reselling business, in which Respondent claims to be engaged, would have disclosed those circumstances.
That is particularly true as Complainant has operated a website under bart.gov and bart.org for many years.
Furthermore, the Panel believes that Respondent’s almost immediate offer, after that purchase, to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant undercuts Respondent’s contention that it bought the name not for exactly that purpose but because it was generic.
Respondent contends that it made said offer only when discovering Complainant’s ownership of the mark after finding the bart.org website, apparently a few days after the purchase.
Granting the maximum credence it can to Respondent’s contention, the Panel can only wonder why, if such information was so readily and easily obtainable, did not Respondent access it prior to purchasing the disputed domain name in the proper and reasonable exercise of Respondent’s business — if that business is actually legitimate?
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Respondent’s contention is inadequate.
Given that Respondent does not and cannot reasonably claim that he is commonly known as the disputed domain name and makes no actual use (commercial or noncommercial) of that name, Policy ¶ 4(c) is otherwise inapplicable to this case, and the Panel determines that Complainant’s prima facie case prevails.
As a result, the Panel finds that Complainant has proven the element noted in Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
In this case, Respondent concedes that, within a short time after acquisition of the disputed domain name, he solicited $11,00.
Accordingly, the Panel concludes that Policy ¶ 4(b)(i) is applicable and that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain bad faith.
For the sake of completeness, the Panel notes that it has been well-established in previous UDRP decisions that a respondent’s acquisition of a disputed domain name is equivalent to a new registration of that name for the purposes of analysis under the Policy.
So you cannot buy a digital property (domain name) and offer it for sale without violating someone’s trademark?
If I buy land and have legit title why do I have to build on it to have a legitimate claim to the property? I don’t so these UDRP rulings are ridiculous.
Leonard
I know we all love to equate domains to real estate but its not real estate.
There is a federal law on the books since 1999 governing the conduct of domain names and trademark holders, there is no such law about real estate.
The guy in my opinion didn’t lose the domain just because he just didn’t use it. He bought a domain that is he subject of a trademark
You have to realize that is the law of the land and when you buy a domain it resets the clock as far as domain ownership and trademark but he buys the domain anyway.
Now the opinion does say the domain has been sold many times since it was registered but it was just lost in a UDRP now.
Why Because the guy buys the domain then immediately goes to the trademark holder and offers to sell it for $11K and then doesn’t use the domain in anyone that can be deemed fair use.
I hadn’t seen your comment before I posted mine. I agree that what the respondent did may not have been smart, but it should not be actionable under the UDRP or ACPA. The domain has a generic meaning, was not used in a trademark-infringing way, and no damage was caused by the offer to sell.
My only question regarding this is, wouldn’t Bart itself be a name? When I read the domain Bart I thought of the Simpsons in reference to the kid Bart, Homer’s son. Where the guy went wrong was in trying to sell it to them since it just looks like hey I bought that domain with the purpose of selling it to the only people who would complain about trademark.
Maybe if he would of went about it a different way or let a buyer come to him things would of played out differently. Still just a tough situation to be in.
– Will
I only provided an asking price when asked, but this should be a moot point.
The domain was pointed to another generic domain of my own in the few weeks I owned the domain.
The reality is if I didn’t sell the domain I was going to develop it, it could be used millions of different ways.
“The reality is if I didn’t sell the domain I was going to develop it, it could be used millions of different ways.”
Translated:
The reality is that if a TM holder didn’t submit to my demands I would have pretended to do something with it because I’m a legitimate domainer and I don’t violate TMs at all.
Ridiculous. This complaint should not only have been denied, but a finding of reverse domain hijacking should have been entered as well. How was BART hurt by being offered the domain for $11,000?
Stop the witch hunts!
Thanks for speaking the truth Jon,
And this is how I must proceed!
He didn’t do anything with the domain which has been found to be problematic by many panels.
Apple is generic too
Go register wwwapple.com call Apple and ask them to buy it and leave the page unresolved see how you do with that one.
I’m not talking about the best strategy for selling domains, I’m talking about what the rules should be so that they are fair and not weighted in favor of trademark holders.
I only owned the domain name for a few weeks and this was evident.
Of course it is unlikely I would build on it immediately.
That is a horrible comparison Michael really?
comparing a wwwwhatever.com to this?
I’ve never registered any www or typo type names in bad faith and I’m mildly shocked at your ignorance.
Hi everyone,
I am the registrant and owner of the generic domain name bart.net. Unfortunately I have been attacked by predatory corporate billionaires and thus far, they believe they have the right to be thieves rather to do business like most people would do
Yes I sent a message to the complainant and MANY other possible buyers a few weeks after buying the domain name. When people requested a price I said $11k or best offer. This price was determined by the sale of Matt.net for $11,501.
My legitimate interest is that four letter domain prices are going through the roof and it is one of my niches I do business in daily. No TM holder of any four letter common generic word has the right to all domain names with that mark.
This is a generic four letter domain name that has been reversed hijacked by a Billion dollar entity.
A federal court order is being filed to stop the theft of this domain.
I am also filing a reverse hijacking lawsuit against SF Bay Area Rapid Transit.
Chad
Why didn’t you pay for a three member panel, $1,500 extra?
A lot cheaper than filing a federal lawsuit
Or hire an attorney to defend you looks like you didn’t hire one?
I could not justify paying such a high multiple compared to what I paid for the domain for a lawyer because I believed this was a clear and cut case. My defense is clear, I had no bad faith, the name was unresolved before I owned it. Who is to say I would not build on it someday with an acronym such as “Be A Reading Teacher.” Or name a pet Bart? Or strike a deal with FOX to build a Bart Simpson site?
All of the entities both businesses and individuals were very cordial when I reached out to them regarding the domain name. I only provided an asking price when asked for one.
Basically this ruling would suggest that any of the new registries should just turn over bart.whatever to this bully of an entity or they may use thief-like tactics in a UDRP
Because of this blatant attempt to steal a generic domain with no compensation for me and my 100% belief this is a reverse hijacking, I will be going forward with my defense with a court order and a federal ruling.
This irrational UDRP decision could set the precedent for other billionaire bullies to steal four letter generics, which is another reason it must the crooked decision must not stand.
This irrational UDRP decision could set the precedent for other billionaire bullies to steal four letter generics, which is another reason the crooked decision must not stand. (grammar edit)
If there is a legal team willing to work pro bono in a reverse hijacking suit, feel free to email the whois on bart.net.
Chad
“This irrational UDRP decision could set the precedent for other billionaire bullies to steal four letter generics, which is another reason the crooked decision must not stand. (grammar edit)””
This is why you have to hire an attorney, and spend the money for a 3 member panel which is going to set you back $5K or so.
You can’t have it both ways and its your obligation to protect the industry from your own actions
Protection from the industry would do away with the current UDRP model that allows for corruption (who knows what really goes on behind the scenes with the panelists) and irrationality to have wiggle room to make illogical decisions.
Hey Mike.
Not everyone has the financial resources to spend thousands of dollars to defend an asset that they already own.
Also you have to make a business decision. Is it worth spending $5K with a best case of keeping the domain. In this case you would be adding a $5K cost to a domain that cost around $750 earlier this year. Does that really make financial sense?
This is a bad decision. First “Bart” is a popular name and there is no denying that.
Realistically how many people are going to confuse Bart with this entity? I would think Bart Simpson is a lot more well know Bart that Bay Area Transit Authority.
I agree that proactively offering a domain for sale to a party can be an issue. But is this not what brokers do daily? Most top tier terms have many TM for various uses. In this case there are 40+ TMs for “Bart”. What gives this entity superior rights over the others?
I also take issue with non-use = bad faith in this decision. That is an awful slippery slope.
Brad
Dr. Chad
I’m saying this
Anytime you get hit with a UDRP you have a chance of losing it no matter how generic the domain and how bad the claim.
You as the owner have to do all you can do to protect yourself and the industry so you hire and attorney and pay for a three member panel, and you still may lose because there are shitty decisions,
Then you can go to federal court but that’s going to cost you $25k or more.
Now as far as the system UDRP reform will be coming but the TM guys are going to try to make it better for them and worse for the domain owner which is why I have been a member of the ICA for many years because that is the only organization that will be fighting for rights of domain holders as UDRP reform takes place.
Now if you choose to do none of the above and just bitch on thedomains.com you’re not going to get any positive results for you or the industry
Mike, I think you’re being unduly hard on the guy.
Would he have fared better if he’d paid several thousand dollars to secure a 3-member panel and another several thousand for a UDRP lawyer? Probably. Is it risky to do sales outreach so quickly, given the appearance of targeting the recipient? Potentially. Should he have seen this coming? Possibly.
But the Bay Area Rapid Transit District is just 1 Bart among many many Barts. They may have a trademark, but that doesn’t give them rights to seize such a generic domain. A registrant’s offer to sell it to them ought to make no difference – especially if he simultaneously offered the domain to others with a competing interest in Bart.net. In short, the UDRP decision seems improper; and it’s certainly arguable.
You may say that “Dr. Chad” (the registrant) was naïve or cheap to defend himself in a single-panelist UDRP, but that doesn’t mean he deserved to lose. There’s a tone of “serves him right” in the comments here, which seems unfair.
If you take your argument to the logical conclusion, only holders of globally unique service marks should have any rights to file a UDRP?
While this make some sense it’s common to find conflict because many generic names are going to be used by multiple corporations in multiple geographies or classes.. Go to guardian.co.uk and guardian.com and you will see why the newspaper eventually just went with TheGuardian. Conflicts happen – who gets the rights to one name shared by many? That’s based on a who gets there first. It used to be who registered the name first and now it’s who files the UDRP first. Based on criteria BART had every right to file a UDRP and win – where did they “seize” it?
Is that right? Probably not but the complaint belongs to the OTHER TM holders and not to the person trying to profit from any of them in competition. If you hold a TM name and you try to “extort” maximum value from any of them you are potentially violating the ACPA and you will likely be found in bad faith in the UDRP process (because you are).
With all due respect to Dr Chad. He has no bona fide offering, no previous noncommercial use, no service and made an investment decision to try and sell an exact TM name to a TM holder with resources. That’s always going to be a losing proposition. Claiming “Be A Reading Teacher” and potential partnerships with FOX doesn’t hold any water. You can’t have bona fide offerings ex post facto (especially such poor ones that couldn’t justify the price tag he put on it…. maybe he should have changed his name to Dr.Bart before buying.
The idea that because there are multiple TM holders that automatically makes it generic is nonsense because as pointed out there are many large companies sharing the same name. If you happened to own Guardian.net and tried to sell it to Guardian Insurance or The Guardian you’re not trading in a generic but trading in a TM with two TM holders. It’s quite a neat distinction.
If your approach to selling names is looking for Trademarks and offering the name you do get what you deserve based on the current laws and remediation methods at the disposal of TM holders.
Of course this makes you wonder why anyone would pay too much for BlueStar.com
It’s a confusing messed up digital world.
@h4ck3r ,
Let me see if I understand your position correctly. Suppose multiple trademarks exist for “Xanadu”. Suppose “Xanadu” is also used in non-trademarked ways. Suppose some domainer buys Xanadu.net with no intention of using it himself but, rather, hoping to resell it – if not to a current Xanadu brand then to some future Xanadu. Suppose he contacts the existing “Xanadu” brands, offering to sell Xanadu.net. It seems you’re saying that the domain owner is a cybersquatter, that he deserves to lose Xanadu.net, that the UDRP winner is justified, and that the only people with cause for complaint are the other “Xanadu” TM holders. Is that paraphrase an accurate representation of your viewpoint?
A sensible policy, it seems to me, would acknowledge that resale is a legitimate reason for owning something – domains included. That’s how the economy distributes merchandise. An auto dealership doesn’t maintain a fleet of cars in order for its employees to drive them all. A grocery store stockpiles far more carrots than it needs. They “squat” on the cars and the carrots, buying them in order to resell them to the rest of us for a profit. Domainers are no different.
So WHY ON EARTH penalize the middle men for their willingness to sell, for reaching out directly? Domainers OUGHT to be incentivized to contact the people who will best use a domain. Should we exclude TM holders with an interest in the domain so that they have no chance to buy? That would be absurd.
Certainly I’m not in favor of cybersquatting. Targeting a particular brand and holding hostage a domain that can hold no legitimate interest for anybody else – that’s pernicious. But if the domain means something apart from that brand, then it doesn’t belong to that brand unless they purchase it. TM or no trademark, if the term has other uses, then it shouldn’t be confiscated through a UDRP and awarded to 1 particular stake holder.
Why should a domainer be compelled to demonstrate some “bona fide offering”, “previous noncommercial use”, or “service” in order to prevent his domain from being confiscated? Would society benefit if we demanded that auto dealerships pretend to drive all their cars, that they studiously refrain from publicizing automobiles for sale? Would society benefit if we forced grocers to take a bite out of each and every carrot in order to legitimize their inventory?
“Suppose some domainer buys Xanadu.net with no intention of using it himself but, rather, hoping to resell it – if not to a current Xanadu brand then to some future Xanadu”
And how is this not bad faith? There are no rules/laws in place against owning and using a name. You can register and use Xanadu all you want. If you own Xanadu for the sole purpose of profiting at the expense of someone who holds a service mark then you are a squatter.
“An auto dealership doesn’t maintain a fleet of cars in order for its employees to drive them all. A grocery store stockpiles far more carrots than it needs.”
Trademarks aren’t carrots or cars. Laws are in place though to prevent hoarding (in theory): anti-trust laws exist to prevent that type of problem. But as stated above by Mr Berkens – domains are not real estate. I’m sure he’d add that they certainly aren’t vegetables 🙂
Considerations in determining whether intellectual piracy has occurred in LAW…I would say that four criteria are met with bart.net:
(I) the trademark is in the domain name;
(iii) the person’s prior use, if any, of the domain name in connection with the bona fide offering of any goods or services;
(IV) the person’s bona fide noncommercial or fair use of the mark in a site accessible under the domain name;
(VI) the person’s offer to transfer, sell, or otherwise assign the domain name to the mark owner or any third party for financial gain without having used, or having an intent to use, the domain name in the bona fide offering of any goods or services, or the person’s prior conduct indicating a pattern of such conduct;
Basically, as everyone says, the domaining industry is not on the most solid of grounding with scant real case law. WIPO/UDRP has the precedents and they are inconsistent and problematic. I would think that a true reform would actually make the situation worse for domainers, rather than better.
” I would think that a true reform would actually make the situation worse for domainers, rather than better.”
Changes in regulations usually benefit whichever group sounds loudest in the ear of power. Predictably, domainers would lose out to lobbyists from other sectors.
“And how is this not bad faith?”
You’ve missed my point. Intent to profit from resale is not bad faith. Why would anybody think so? Middle men purchase items they don’t need in order to distribute those items to people who need them. That’s the way economies function.
Maybe this will make the distinction plain …
If I manufacture a duplicate set of keys to your car and then attempt to sell them to you for a profit, then that’s bad faith. That’s squatting. Nobody but you has any legitimate use for your car keys. They fit only 1 thing – the car you’ve already paid for. And I could have no use for them apart from extorting money from you specifically.
But suppose you own a Porsche whereas I don’t. Further, suppose I maintain an inventory of car parts including replacement doors for a Porsche just like yours. I have no interest whatsoever in these Porsche doors except reselling them. They clearly fit your car. But they don’t just fit YOUR car. It doesn’t matter if they match what you have rights to. It doesn’t matter that I bought goods only to resell them. What matters is that the item being offered for sale could legitimately benefit any one of multiple parties. What matters is that no single entity can claim sole rights to something where demand exceeds supply.
What I’m advocating for is common sense.
There’s no law on the books that says you have stolen something from me if you happen to buy a key that’s an exact copy of mine that happens to open my car and you ask me to pay an extortionate amount for it. In fact, you could offer to sell it to me and it makes NO difference. I could choose to say my key works just fine.
You see, keys aren’t Trademarks.
It doesn’t matter how many analogies you come up with they are all just meaningless analogies.
The world is full of middlemen – the car industry has always been questioned (ever wonder why you can’t buy a dealer direct car). The middle men in all industries is covered by some law but there is nothing to protect the buying and selling of domain names that violate a trademark.
What is common sense when you have a name clash?
Why is guardian.com – guardian industries and not the Guardian newspaper? Shouldn’t it be based on earliest incorporation? The newspaper wins by 100 years or so.. revenue? by poll? by who pays the most?
What I do know is that if I happened to try and sell Guardian.net to either of them both would claim an entitlement. How should that be decided? Free market auction? So it’s a middle man trading in Trademarks that resolves this? What if there was ONLY one company – does that matter? What makes something generic? Perhaps I wanted to name my future son Accenture..
Perhaps we should legitimize cybersquatting and be done with it? It’s just being a middleman, right?
@h4ck3r,
When the person I’m talking to declares that everything I say is “all just meaningless”, then it’s time for me to wash my hands of that person. Ask someone else to explain my position to you.
I didn’t call anything you said meaningless and I’m sorry if you feel that way. I actually truly appreciate the time you take to comment here and to me in particular.
What I did to is call the analogies meaningless and this is not in any way an indictment of you.
I understand what you are saying but I just think that it’s key that trading in Trademarks (and intellectual property in general) is not like trading in other tangible items. It’s like the argument as to whether downloading videos is theft as nothing real is actually stolen… and then extending that argument to used books or libraries (now who’s using analogies).
Again, apologies.
@h4ck3r,
No need to apologize, as I wasn’t offended. We just hit a dead end. I figure that as long as 2 people can explain each other’s viewpoint to one another’s satisfaction, then they can disagree constructively. That’s why I paraphrased your viewpoint and asked if it was correct.
On the other hand, I don’t see my position mirrored in your rebuttals. So we’re not really communicating. You may think my arguments invalid, but to declare in an offhand way that the bulk of what I’d said is “just meaningless” shows that you weren’t trying very seriously to understand or interact with the other person. Good faith in conversation requires that both people sincerely try to understand one another’s remarks before steamrolling onward.
Take this bit of rhetoric, for example:
“Perhaps I wanted to name my future son Accenture. Perhaps we should legitimize cybersquatting and be done with it? It’s just being a middleman, right?”
That has nothing to do with my position. You were having a monologue, not a conversation.
Please HELP ME, I don’t know what I have to do now. I was so excited knewing there is a company called BART employng many people and now, few minutes have passed and I don’t know what I have to do. I had a lot of t-shirts with the name BART printed over. It was a mistake, a stupid person impressed BART instead of BAST… If I offer the 5.000 t-shirts I have to them now, they will sue me or they will force me to give my t-shirts to them for free?
Joseph Peterson says
“Would he have fared better if he’d paid several thousand dollars to secure a 3-member panel and another several thousand for a UDRP lawyer? ”
Maybe
We can’t control everything
we can only do out best and sometime we will get a bad outcome anyway but you have to do your best
So I’m not saying he is too cheap
I’m saying he didn’t hire an attorney, he didn’t pay for a 3 member panel, he thinks (as well as I do) that the UDRP rule are unfairly applied to the TM holders but hasn’t given a dime to a organization that is the only one to stand up for domain holders.
So all I’m saying is you have to do what you can do and in his case his conduct didn’t help at all.
Once in a while in life you will lose despite doing the best you can do
We know that for sure since we have all been there
I’m just saying his objections to the whole deal doesn’t match his efforts to stop a bad outcome
Mike, I understand your perspective. Precautions could have been taken that weren’t. The registrant wore revealing clothing in a dark alley late at night and wasn’t carrying pepper spray, but he didn’t deserve what he got.
Maybe $5k in legal expenses seems like a the bare minimum to some people, but for most Americans $5k is a month’s pay. Not everybody can raise it, especially knowing in advance that they won’t be reimbursed even if the UDRP panel finds in their favor.
Fact is, UDRP defense costs are more of a burden for the typical domain reseller than they are for big companies and institutions. And the chance of recovering the costs of defending oneself are minimal. So I’m more inclined to cut the victim some slack and blame the thugs.
Brad
I agree with you but if you no everyone has the resources to put up a big defense
I you don’t have the resources to defend a domain that had a strong trademark than avoid it.
I turned down a domain for Donuts just last week which I thought had a strong TM not because i couldn’t afford to defend it but because I didn’t want to screw with the additional cost
So that’s a decision
Now if you go blinding into something without a thought and then want me to spend my money to defend you then sorry not going to hold a telethon for you to raise defense money
If your buying a domain with an possible issue recoginze it, build it into the cost and if you can’t afford it pass
Sorry readers but…
Buying a domain name that corresponds to a TM and then immediately turning around and attempting to sell it to the TM holder for an amount in excess of your out of pocket expenses isn’t that the definition of cybersquatting
Is or isn’t?
(Not sure there is a definition, per se, but I think it would likely fall under the cyberpiracy prevention clause of the ACPA)
What if I would buy bart.net for my future godson? Would that be a better defence?
You could have bought Bart.net for a million reasons but like if you wound up with Apple.net do something with it quickly and don’t call apple and ask them if they want to buy it
Joseph
“”” I would think that a true reform would actually make the situation worse for domainers, rather than better.”””
To be clear UDRP reform is coming, not a question of whether but of when and probably in the next year or two at the latest
The TM groups want to apply the URS to .com and other existing extensions, they would love a loser pays model and they would love the AND changed to an OR in the bad faith requirement and yes there are few that will be fighting on the side of the domain owners and a ton of lawyers will be representing TM holders at ICANN
Now probably for the 100+ time I’m telling people to join and support the ICA which is the only group I’m aware of that will be fighting for the domain holders.
@Michael Berkens,
I’m sure you’re right. Currently, the ICA’s plans are unknown to me. My preferred form of activism is public speech rather than paying somebody else to speak for me. If there are pressure points where writing might make a difference, feel free to point them out.
Joseph
Public speach is great
Do you go to the ICANN meetings where you voice will be heard?
That matters
Do you comment to ICANN in the comment period?
If so great they do get read
If your just writing on my blog or Andrews or anyone else’s then you voice is not getting heard
@Michael Berkens,
Yes, I have commented during ICANN comment periods on occasion and (as you might imagine) at length. But whether they attend to those comments or not I couldn’t begin to say. I even applied for a full time position at ICANN some time ago, but they didn’t so much as acknowledge receipt of my application. My assumption is that large organizations will ignore anything they find convenient to ignore and that comments submitted to government bodies by persons of little clout go down a bottomless pit without serious consideration.
Joseph
If you commented then you participated and did what you can do
Where the comment goes or what effect it has a different issue
People who don’t participate in the process other than bitch on the blog, drives me crazy so good for you
I don’t know why Non-use should apply to domain names when it doesn’t apply to any other type of property, especially since he had only owned the domain for a few weeks. And why would you spend more for a three member panel on what seems like such a clearcut case.