Though since you say he has the patent for the product, didnt mention holding a copyright
Oy...
A patent grants a right to exclude others from making, using, selling, importing, or offering to sell an invention as defined by the claims of the patent - a set of numbered formal statements at the end of the patent (unless we are talking about a design patent, which protects the ornamental design of a useful object). Considering the fact that under the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure section 608.1(v) the description of the invention in terms of trademarks is discouraged (
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0600_608_01_v.htm), since the point of the patent specification is to describe the invention in concise terms understable to one of ordinary skill in the pertinent art, then what having a patent would have to do with legal rights in a referent term is something of a mystery here.
Copyright confers an exlusive right to make copies or derivative works of an original work of authorship. Copyright protection is not provided to single words, slogans, and short terms used as...
TRADEMARKS - that's what you'd be looking for here. A trademark is a symbol, word, or device which, when applied to goods and services in commerce, provides a distinctive indicator of the source or origin of the goods or services, in order to differentiate those goods or services from other goods or services of that type in the marketplace. With the exception of famous marks and certain inherently distinctive, fanciful terms, whether a trademark is infringed depends on the likelihood of confusion of a relevant consumer. In the context of cybersquatting, the issue is whether a domain name was registered out of a bad faith intent to exploit the value of a trademark belonging to another.
So, what is it that you believe your father has here, and what is it that the domain name registrant is doing?