Thanks George, the http”s”was missing but found them on their site. I had no idea of these glaring examples of incompetence, if you posted these before on the URS discussion, I never saw them. https://www.adrforum.com/domain-dispute/search-decisions https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1815095D.htm “The Examiner finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The disputed domain name reverts to a site which informs the user that “This site can’t be located.” Such passive use of the domain name in dispute supports a finding of the requisite bad faith.” So this examiner states that non usage is “bad faith”!!! No DNS evidence is presented to determine it was parked, any archive.org links, etc, if it was blocked by a firewall in China, etc. simply a suspension. https://www.adrforum.com/DomainDecisions/1785973D.htm “Respondent has registered or acquired the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the disputed domain name registration to the Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the disputed domain name; or b. Respondent has registered the disputed domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the trademark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or c. Respondent registered the disputed domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or d. By using the disputed domain name Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location. Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith since Respondent is not making active use of the disputed domain name.” So non usage, according to the ADR the act of investing in LLL domain names is bad faith. Isn’t this decision like going back in time 20 years for the earliest cybersquatting like disputes?