Well at the end of the day, you are all correct in your recommendations of it not being a good idea. If you don't want the headache, don't register a domain with potential conflicts. That being said, most of the case law sides with the domain owner, based upon hard to prove intent.
At first glance I found 13 cases, all siding with the domain holder. The domain holders are the ones winning in court and there is a bunch of case law behind them, unless of course they are committing extortion. It seems the lawyers have infiltrated the ISPs because they cannot win in an equitable court of law. The next question is, do the ISPs need to be put in check for undue regulation and limitations of constitutional rights. Most likely it would full circle back to intent and we would learn some really interesting things in discovery.....
"A gripe site that incorporates a company's entire trademark into its domain is still protected under the First Amendment, a US District Judge has ruled. In the case of Career Agents Network v. careeragentsnetwork.biz, the judge said that the gripe site made no effort to bolster its own business and was noncommercial, therefore protecting it from Career Agents Network's trademark claims and cybersquatting accusations."
////cases//////
/////
Lucas Nursery and Landscaping, Inc. v. Grosse
Defendant used domain name to host a
legitimate, critical, noncommercial site.
Sixth Circuit found no bad faith intent to
profit, only good intentions to educate other
consumers about her experience.
////////
Taubman Co. v. Webfeats
“[T]he domain name is a type of public expression,
no different in scope than a billboard or a pulpit, and
[the defendant] has a First Amendment right to
express his opinion about [the plaintiff], and as long
as his speech is not commercially misleading, the
Lanham Act cannot be summoned to prevent it.”
//////
Bosley Medical Inst. v. Kremer
Former patient created website
bosleymedicalviolations
to criticize past
service by the company
Multiple claims (infringement, dilution, Lanham Act
anti
-dilution)
NO liability under the Lanham Act