3 Letter .net UDRP - BNP.net (NamePros owner?)

[IAmAllanShore]

Pretty sure that's a NP'er, but here's the decision:
http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0091.html
BNP.net complaint DENIED.

-Allan :gl:

 

[smartpc]

Lol, yes BNP stands for something far different in the UK than a banking service.

 

[fonzie_007]

I certainly don't agree with the usage of the domain, but it is good to know the complaint was denied.

 

[IAmAllanShore]

I certainly don't agree with the usage of the domain, but it is good to know the complaint was denied.

Indeed. With a few of the other 3 letter decisions against the respondent it was nice to see one with an actual response, rather than a "roll-over-and-die" approach

I was a little surprised that Reverse-Hijacking wasn't given further treatment.

-Allan

 

[accent]

I noticed that the respondent either prepared his own response or did not attribute it to an attorney, yet he still won against a big bank.

But he had a very strong case, despite the objectional nature of his site, which the panel rightly did not consider.

 

[Dave_Z]

This paragraph practically summarizes why:

On the other hand, there is no evidence that the Respondent has sought to pass himself off as having any connection or association with the Complainant. In addition, there is no evidence before the Panel that the Respondent has registered the Domain Name with the intent to (1) resell it to the Complainant, or a competitor of the complainant, at a profit; or (2) with the intent to prevent the Complainant from reflecting its trademark in a corresponding Domain Name.

If the respondent presented "proof" of reverse domain hijacking, that decision
might have been reached.