John, are you aware of UDRP cases where the domain was found to be used in bad faith (such as parked with wrong keywords) but still registered in good faith?
Very few. If there are a some incidental bad PPC links, for example, I have managed to win several:
https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/206309.htm
"It is the finding of this Panel that the brief appearance of aviation links on Respondent’s Web sites was automatically provided by a pay-per-click search engine provider and was not intended by Respondent. Further, since there is no evidence that Respondent’s business is in connection with aviation, we do not find that the Respondent had a duty to be aware of Complainant’s mark."
Now, you'll notice that is a very old case. Some other examples:
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-1275.html
"Nor is the Panel persuaded that the presence of advertising links to alternative sources of OUTSIDE magazine subscriptions (among hundreds of unrelated links) implicates the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant’s marks and intent to confuse Internet users. The Respondent denies such knowledge and intent. There is no evidence in the record that casts doubt on the Respondent’s claim that the advertising links are served automatically by a third-party advertising feed provider using keyword search techniques rather than human selection. The automated advertising feed arrangements are such that it cannot be assumed that the Respondent requested such links or was even aware of them before receiving notice of this dispute. In the face of the Respondent’s denials and the automated nature of the advertising links, the Panel considers these particular links insufficient to prove the Respondent’s intent to mislead Internet users by means of the Domain Name itself.
In short, the Panel is unwilling to attribute bad faith to this search software. And it does not feel warranted in presuming bad faith on the part of a company using such software when the “keywords” it provides are merely dictionary words."
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-1816.html
"The Respondent has been using the Domain Name to link it to various parking pages featuring sponsored links through which the Respondent derives pay-per-click or referral income. If the sponsored links have a preponderance in any direction, it appears to be in the direction of the operas of Wagner and primarily, Tristan und Isolde. However, the spread of links is a wide one and not obviously fashion orientated, although for a time one of the many categories of links featured was a ‘clothing’ category."
Certainly, if the domain registrant had the domain name prior to the trademark, then current use is not going to outweigh the impossibility of bad faith registration.
Also, it used to be possible to look up keyword bids, and there were a couple of cases where I caught the UDRP complainant intentionally bidding on keywords to show up in PPC:
https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/843597.htm
"Complainant has placed a spectacularly high maximum bid of $2.74 to have its advertisement for absorbents displayed in response to Internet searches for the word “pig.” Complainant caused the display of its own ad on the Respondent’s website, and that such a result was entirely independent of any consciously directed activity of the Respondent.
The only link relevant to the Complainant is the result of the Complainant’s own action. None of the other links displayed at <pig.com> have any relationship to the Complaint’s oil absorbent products, and thus do not infringe the Complainant’s mark nor do they “divert” consumers who are searching for products or services relevant to the ordinary meaning of the word “pig.”"
Another situation is where the PPC results are geo-targeted, such that the domain registrant would not even know what are the PPC results displayed elsewhere:
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2005/d2005-0241.html
"It is unnecessary to decide whether any intentional display by the Respondent of insurance advertisements on his website after becoming aware of the Complainant’s mark could render illegitimate that which was previously legitimate because the Panel accepts that the terms under which Google makes its Adsense advertisements available do not permit the Respondent to control them and that the Respondent cannot be aware of their content as displayed in any particular country."
Now, if you look at those cases, you'll notice that (a) I successfully defended each one of them and (b) they were all a fairly long time ago. They are not broadly representative of outcomes in cases where there are bad incidental PPC links.
Obviously, if there are no bad PPC links, one doesn't have to spend energy and part of the word count quota arguing a point that is an unfavorable one.
Hypothetically, if this one went to a dispute, then you are starting from a position that the domain name is Quatro and is clearly advertising things relevant to the Audi Quattro mark.
As a domain registrant, compare your circumstances there versus a sales lander with a picture of someone standing in front of a Portuguese flag holding up four fingers.
It's all about what someone else - and a very skeptical someone else who usually sees a lot of cybersquatted names - is going to infer about your motivation on the basis of what's in front of their face.
If you had those images and a contact form, you'd be fine.