For some hedonism is securing pleasure; for others it is a course of study. The word can be employed as a trademark or descriptively, although suspicion of abusive registration is natural when to “hedonism” is added “hotel” as in <hedonismhotels.com>, particularly when the Complainant has trademarks containing the word “hedonism” including HEDONISM RESORTS. VRL International Ltd. and International Lifestyles, Inc. v. Relevansanalys, D2009-0974 (WIPO September 3, 2009).

This kind of case if undefended points to bad faith, but when explained with affirmative proof of the Respondent’s identity and his use of the domain name his registration makes sense – enough to defeat a finding of bad faith. This explains why the Panel denied the Respondent’s request to find Complainant guilty of abusing the proceeding. The Complainant could not reasonably have been expected to know either the explanation or proof before receiving the response.

The case illustrates, however, some useful reminders in paper only proceedings. The explanation must be plausible, as it was not in AZ Interactive, S.L. v. Feniwel, S.A., D2009-0975 (WIPO September 3, 2009)(<sexywebcam.mobi>). But, when it is plausible “there is no basis for preferring the Complainants[’] view of the Respondent’s motivations and purposes over the Respondent’s view given the corroborating evidence advance by the Respondent in support of his claim.” The Respondent offered proof that he had been a philosophy student; that he and other students had met to discuss the philosophy of hedonism in various hotels; and as a group they maintained a blog and correspondence on the subject reflected on the website.

The Complainants’ allegation that the Respondent must have been aware of the trademark had no concrete proof. “It is certainly the case that the materials are all English language publications. As the Respondent contends, none appear to have been published in Sweden or otherwise specifically targeted at the public in Sweden.” The answer to the Complainant's contention that it is impossible for the Respondent to use the domain name as the name of any business is answered by the reality that the domain name is in fact being used for a “non-commercial activity which does not appear to trade on the Complainants' rights or reputation.”