... the Panel reaches the conclusion the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with a view to selling it at a substantial profit to the body responsible for promoting tourism in Qatar and which was already active under the “visitqatar” term on social media. He then proceeded cautiously and set about putting in place measures to legitimize the Disputed Domain Name and defend any UDRP proceeding. These included linking the Disputed Domain Name to a working (but rudimentary) travel related website and seeking a US trademark registration. He then thought it worthwhile to see if he could, with a cautious approach, elicit interest from the body in question and used intermediaries for that purpose.
(Quote end).
As per UDRP records, panelists Alistair Payne and Adam Taylor are definitely not biased. They saved a number of domains in cases where Respondents were genuine domainers. I would be happy to see either of them in any case involving my domains. I am not familiar with the decisions of the 3rd panelist, Nick J. Gardner - but, generally speaking, the panel looks 100% OK from domainer-respondents point of view.
So, it appears that the Respondent in this case represented himself both as a domainer (there was "outbound" marketing) and as an enduser (some non-parked and not "for sale" page, alleged ownership of travel agencies and legal entities in various countries, etc.). This alone is an unusual combination, must have been suspicious from Panelists point of view. Moreover, he hired
@jberryhill - this selection might allow the Panel to assume that the respondent is in fact a domainer and not an enduser, and that he tries to hide this. Indeed, endusers in either position (Complainant or Respondent) would more frequently be represented by their local law firms and not by an attorney from another part of the globe.
So, the decision is natural. It is not the only case, and not the last UDRP case where the Panel first decides what should be "honest" from global or human point of view, and, with this feeling in mind they prepare formal written decision.
Just imho.
The last but not the least. Please, DO NOT, again, DO NOT "outbound" government agencies or government-owned companies. Any government. Any country. Even if you think that the country is "rich" (Middle East for example). An outcome of such an "outbound" may not necessary be pleasant.