A domain name is freely marketable, but a transferee should not conclude the transaction before undertaking some due diligence. Caveat emptor! MasterCard International is the trademark holder of PAYPASS. Even if a trademark search is not a requirement, PAYPASS comes up number one on a Google search. The Respondent (who did not appear) in MasterCard International Incorporated v. C W, D2009-0497 (WIPO June 16, 2009) is a transferee “rout[ing] users to websites offering goods or services of Complainant’s competitors.”

As the Panel notes in a footnote, “UDRP Panels generally treat acquisition in bad faith as equivalent to registration in bad faith, and ‘although the Policy requires both registration and use in bad faith, it is clear that for the purpose of the Policy ‘registration’ may include registration on acquisition by a new holder.” The consensus is that transfer = registration:

The Panel finds that Respondent itself acquired the registration with awareness of Complainant’s mark in a deliberate attempt to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain.... The Panel concludes, therefore, that Respondent registered the domain name in bad faith for purposes of the Policy.

The transferee inherits bad faith registration; its use in bad faith is deduced (in this case) from the content of the website. Although it was not the fact in this case, registration in good faith metamorphosing to use in bad faith is also inheritable. A transferee does not inherit its predecessor’s good faith registration.

The Respondent also had another strike against it. It concealed its identity. “Panels may draw inferences about bad faith registration or use in light of the circumstances, including a respondent’s concealment of identity, a lack of conceivable good faith uses for the domain name, or failure to reply to a complaint.”