Case No. D2016-0362
The most interesting part of the decision:
Complainant does not provide any proof indicating that Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from and exploit Complainant’s trademark. The Panel finds that Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant is not relevant as Respondent was first approached by Complainant to sell the disputed domain name.
It appears that if Respondent would first approached Complainant, the decision could be different. This is something that should be taken into account by domainers when using outbound marketing.
The most interesting part of the decision:
Complainant does not provide any proof indicating that Respondent’s aim in registering the disputed domain name was to profit from and exploit Complainant’s trademark. The Panel finds that Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name to Complainant is not relevant as Respondent was first approached by Complainant to sell the disputed domain name.
It appears that if Respondent would first approached Complainant, the decision could be different. This is something that should be taken into account by domainers when using outbound marketing.
