In general, Avtar629 has absolutely not the first clue what he is talking about, and has seized the opportunity to prove that again here.
The excerpt below is from the WIPO Overview of panel views on various UDRP issues that arise with some regularity. It is based on summaries of many UDRP decisions, and it frequently itself used as a guide for making UDRP decisions.
https://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/overview3.0/#item38
3.8 Can bad faith be found where a domain name was registered before the complainant acquired trademark rights?
3.8.1 Domain names registered before a complainant accrues trademark rights
Subject to scenarios described in
3.8.2 below, where a respondent registers a domain name before the complainant’s trademark rights accrue, panels will not normally find bad faith on the part of the respondent. (This would not however impact a panel’s assessment of a complainant’s standing under the first UDRP element.)
Merely because a domain name is initially created by a registrant other than the respondent before a complainant’s trademark rights accrue does not however mean that a UDRP respondent cannot be found to have registered the domain name in bad faith.
Irrespective of the original creation date, if a respondent acquires a domain name after the complainant’s trademark rights accrue, the panel will look to the circumstances at the date the UDRP respondent itself acquired the domain name.
...
3.9 Can the respondent’s renewal of its domain name registration support a finding of (registration in) bad faith?
Where the respondent provides satisfactory evidence of an unbroken chain of possession, panels typically would not treat merely “formal” changes or updates to registrant contact information as a new registration.
Also, irrespective of registrant representations undertaken further to UDRP paragraph 2, panels have found that the mere renewal of a domain name registration by the same registrant is insufficient to support a finding of registration in bad faith.
On the other hand, the transfer of a domain name registration from a third party to the respondent is not a renewal and the date on which the current registrant acquired the domain name is the date a panel will consider in assessing bad faith. This holds true for single domain name acquisitions as well as for portfolio acquisitions.
In cases where the domain name registration is masked by a privacy or proxy service and the complainant credibly alleges that a relevant change in registration has occurred, it would be incumbent on the respondent to provide satisfactory evidence of an unbroken chain of registration; respondent failure to do so has led panels to infer an attempt to conceal the true underlying registrant following a change in the relevant registration. Such an attempt may in certain cases form part of a broader scenario whereby application of UDRP paragraph 4(b)(iv), read in light of paragraph 4(a)(ii), can support an inference of bad faith registration for the respondent to rebut.
Facts or circumstances supporting an inference that a change in registrant has occurred may typically include a change in the content of the website to which a domain name directs to take advantage of the complainant’s mark
or unsolicited attempts to sell the domain name to the complainant only following such asserted change in registrant.
-------------
So, in terms of relative dates, what matters in the UDRP is when YOU acquired the domain name. There are some problems with that, but that's the way these decisions go.
If by that you mean to suggest it is a registered mark in Mexico then, no, it's not. It is a pending application for registration.
And not only that, it is a pending application for a figurative mark for "software administration". Quite obviously, if the domain name were being used, for example, to advertising musical instrument tuning, or even automotive engine tuning, that would have nothing to do with the mark and would be perfectly consistent with the dictionary words in the domain name itself.
