Registering in bad faith

[DomainPairs]

I've read quite a lot of postings, web pages and other items about registering in bad faith. It seems to me that any registration or holding of a domain name without being associated with a web site is bad faith. This includes main registrars keeping a pool of premium names, Buying for speculation, and not deleting a name when a web site is no longer required.

I realise this is a fairly extreme view and that I have probably misunderstood something, but I feel that the safest option is to attach a name to a small web site or alias it to another. Email forwarding doesn't seem to be enough on its own.

[pljones]

Certain "registrars" have lost UDRP proceedings. DomainCollection.com is one in particular. See also http://arbiter.wipo.int/domains/deci...001-00017.html and http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/112481.htm

[pljones]

I forgot to add this usDRP decision mentioning Intercosmos Media Group's DomainApex.com reseller site: http://www.arbforum.com/domains/decisions/123905.htm . US Bank argued that the registrant, "Unused Domains," was an agent or alias of Intercosmos Media Group, an ICANN-accredited registrar. The panelist didn't discuss this in deciding in favor of US Bank, but this seems to be close to your question.

[DomainPairs]

That's interesting - thanks for that.

So it seems that I should use a name for a legit reason rather than leave it parked.

What would happen if I had a name like fetishfun.net and developed that into a site with tm while fetishfun.com was on a parking page. Could I claim the .com at renewal or transfer?

[dtobias]

A web site isn't the only legitimate use for a domain name (in fact, domain names existed before the Web did). Email, FTP, other sorts of servers and network infrastructure nodes, etc., are perfectly legitimate.

[adoptabledomains]

Originally posted by DomainPairs
It seems to me that any registration or holding of a domain name without being associated with a web site is bad faith. (snipped)

I heard you have some money in your checking account you are not currently using. It seems you've accepted it in bad faith. Please send it to me since I will use it immediately.

I saw an empty lot in a subdivision that hasn't been built on yet. I think that person has purchased it in bad faith since they haven't built a house yet. Do you think I should be able to file a claim and get it I will build a house on it?

These sound crazy, but it's really the same thing. It is not bad faith to own somthing and do nothing with it or delay doing something with it. It's not bad faith to own something just to keep someone else from being able to have it unless they have some right (not need or want) to have it over you.

I have a couple domains I use only for email with no website. unless you check the actual DNS records, you won't know if it's in use just because you can't find it with http protocol.

Even having a name that someone else has some form of right to is not always considered bad faith, if you didn't know they had the right and didn't do anything to harm their rights other than not allowing them use.

[DomainPairs]

I understand about doing nothing with it or using it for my own purposes.

The reason I have bought most of my names is to sell them. It seems once I advertise just the name then I am indicating bad faith. If I attach a one page portal site, then I am selling a business which is less likely to be bad faith. Is this true?

[HOWARD]

"If I attach a one page portal site, then I am selling a business which is less likely to be bad faith. Is this true?"

Basically, yes. Although the analogy to money in the bank and empty lots is a good one, it hasn't persuaded arbitration panels at WIPO and NAF to rule in favor of domains that are parked and not being used. They have frequently ruled that there is no legitimate business use and that the domain is just being held to keep the trademark owner from using it, or words to that effect.




__________________