Ceres
New Member
This National Arbitration Forum decision highlights how a complainant tried to obtain a domain name to which it didn't have rights. The complainant tried capitalising on two past decisions in which the respondent lost typo domains (wwwadameve.com and Symantic.com).
Even though the respondent did not file a response in this case, the panel ruled in his favour and stated that there was no finding of bad faith:
What do you think?
Even though the respondent did not file a response in this case, the panel ruled in his favour and stated that there was no finding of bad faith:
In my opinion, this was the correct decision by the Panel. While I think the previous two decisions were correct (and the complainants deserved to win the typo domains), each case must be decided on its own merit in order for the domain arbitration system to work. I have come across other decisions where the outcome of the respondent's past domain disputes have hurt them. The problem with this is that many decisions are wrongly decided!Respondent registered the <creativelab.com> domain name on September 15, 2000, which is four years before Complainant existed as a company.
What do you think?