People go on and on about the supportive argument that the price was too high. Doesn't anyone check sources anymore these days?
Read the full report and you'll see the ruling has nothing to do with the price!
I blame the millennials
thanks:
"Complainant asserts it formerly owned the disputed domain name but inadvertently allowed the registration to lapse, after which time Respondent was able to register the disputed domain name."
"Respondent asserts Complainant filed a trademark application for the LAKES GAS mark only after the disputed domain name was registered by Respondent."
"The Panel takes notice that Respondent filed its Response a day after the clearly established due date. "
- WTF
- here we are:
"The Panel agrees with Respondent that Complainant lacks a registered trademark in LAKES GAS, and Respondent registered the disputed domain name before any application to register this trademark in the United States. However, as discussed above, Complainant established common law rights in the LAKES GAS mark well before Respondent registered the disputed domain name. Respondent knew or should have known, even based on “the most rudimentary Internet search,” about Complainant’s business and its protectable common law rights in its LAKES GAS mark."
-and that's a really bad idea:
"Further, the website located at the disputed domain name identifies Complainant’s business on the bottom of the webpage as a potentially associated business, furthering establishing the connection between Complainant and their rights in LAKES GAS. "
"Absent some genuine use, or intended use, of the disputed domain name in a way that relates to the asserted descriptive meaning, merely offering such a domain name for sale does not give rise to rights or legitimate interests in it."
- High price is a reason:
"Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is to offer it for sale at an exorbitantly high price of USD 94,888. This Panel takes notice that the estimated fair market value for this disputed domain name ranges from about USD 650 to about 2,300. This supports an inference of bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(i) and/or 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Furthermore, somewhat mendaciously, the list price was removed from the web page at the time of this Panel’s determination."
-Important!:
"Changing the content featured on the website located at a disputed domain name is further indication of bad faith under the Policy."