Kevin tweeted a link to this decision earlier today and it scared me. It really did.
What’s so scary?
This part of the UDRP decision:
Complainant asserts that Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name, constituting bad faith registration and use. Complainant submits a printout verifying its assertion that the website is essentially inactive. The only content included on the website is the phrase “Coming Soon” and the prominent display of Complainant’s mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent has failed to make an active use of the disputed domain name, which is a clear example of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Disney Enters. Inc. v. Meyers, FA 697818 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 26, 2006) (holding that the non-use of a disputed domain name for several years constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii); see also Am. Broad. Cos., Inc. v. Sech, FA 893427 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 28, 2007) (concluding that the respondent’s failure to make active use of its domain name in the three months after its registration indicated that the respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith).
That sounds a lot like saying that an unused domain is being “used” in bad faith. Of course the addition of the complainant’s “mark” on the holding page might have been persuasive, but I wonder would other arbiters view the decision in the same way?
