Comments

• smlevy42 11:55 am 08-Nov-2013 While this decision satisfies the long-held desire of brand owners to use the UDRP to enforce their trademarks in situations where use of a domain has turned from good to bad, it raises the question of what the drafters of the UDRP intended by adding Par. 2 but also requiring proof that a domain has been registered and is being used in bad faith. If the Big5.com Panel’s conclusions are applied in other cases could this lead to odd situations where a domain can flip back-and-forth between good and bad faith depending on the use to which it is then being put at the time of its most recent renewal? This calls into question the use of the word “and” in Par. 4(a)(iii) since it seems that, for all practical purposes, use may really be the only relevant factor when considering bad faith (unless a complaint is filed prematurely when the use has turned bad but the domain is not yet due for its next renewal). If a domain transitions to bad faith use and this is considered sufficient grounds to order a transfer under the UDRP after a renewal, then why bother looking at the merely technical act of renewal at all? Also, since Par. 2 uses the terms “register” and “renew” to mean 2 separate things, must we interpret the use of the word “registered” (but not “renewed”) in Par. 4(a)(iii) consistently? On the other hand, if the Big5.com Panel’s reasoning is flawed, then what is the relevance of Par. 2 of the UDRP? Is it merely a private matter between the domain owner and its registrar for violation of terms? Rather than have Panelists settle these thorny issues, perhaps this should be a matter for those seeking to amend the language of the UDRP itself after a full and open debate of the issues (after all, the thing is almost 15 years old and could use some sprucing up!). Perhaps it’s time to change “and” to “or” as it is used in the dispute policies of certain other country-code domains.

• Me 01:12 pm 18-Nov-2013 "If the Big5.com Panel’s conclusions are applied in other cases could this lead to odd situations where a domain can flip back-and-forth between good and bad faith depending on the use to which it is then being put at the time of its most recent renewal?" No, because bad faith at any point constitutes bad faith from that point on. The only issue if the domain is transferred to another party are they retrospectively on the hook for bad faith? Bad faith can also be evidenced by prior actions, such as a pattern of similar activity. It can also be evidenced by the actions of the domain holder in their solicitation or interaction with the complainant.