trademark 4th Circuit: ACPA covers domain re-registrations still being considered cybersquatting

[News]

Cybersquatters may violate federal law even if they aren’t the original registrants of the challenged domain, according to a ruling from the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

In a matter of first impression, the Fourth Circuit affirmed summary judgment against a Chinese company accused of violating the Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act, or ACPA, by re-registering a domain name with a bad faith intent to profit...

Read More

 

[Mize]

Where am I not understanding something correctly from my perception below? :

Granted, I have not dug too deeply but I did look at web.archive.org to see what had been on the website since the domain was purchased in 2017.

This seems to be a domain name theft in broad daylight with the help of multiple judges.

I'm interested to see when AI comes through and re-evaluates court decisions having access to more data and can see the interconnectedness better than we can as humans with limits on our brains.

This seems to be a plan B attempt that was successful to get a domain.

THACKER, Circuit Judge: link
Prudential initiated the underlying action after discovering that SSN had registered the domain name PRU.COM.

And from the article: "Shortly after SSN rejected its offer, Prudential filed for administrative dispute resolution, and again tried to buy the domain from SSN, this time offering $50,000."

So was Prudential concerned about the trademark infringement from: "Visitors to PRU.COM were routed to a GoDaddy landing page with pay-per-click hyperlinks displaying Prudential’s marks and those of its competitors, as well as the phrase “Would you like to buy this domain?”

If so, could they not inform the domain holder that the current website is infringing on their trademark and then see how the domain holder reacts. There is a difference in intentional and unintentional infringement. If the domain holder bought the domain in bad faith in hopes to make money from infringing on Prudential would they not have started infringing as soon as possible after buying the domain?

To me, it seems Prudential wanted the domain, which should have been a separate transaction from the infringement (that from what I can tell seems to be unintentional and easily resolvable).

What am I missing or not understanding?