UDRP and bad faith

[draqon]

One of the primary components of winning a UDRP is being able to prove that a domain was registered AND currently being used in bad faith. And yet I am pretty sure there were some cases where the domain was registered in good faith, but currently being used in very bad faith, and the courts decided to find for the complainant. I think Nissan.com was one of these situations, but I might be getting confused.

Anyway here is my question...do complainants still have to prove that a domain was registered AND used in bad faith? Or has past precedent done away with this requirement?

It seems an obsolete and outdated requirement, if I had registered Amazon.net in 1992 in order to provide info on the amazon jungle, and then switched to selling books on my domain in 2000, I don't think panelists should tolerate that sort of buffoonery.

[Banned: bidawinner]

Ok, I'm confused .. you dont think UDRP should put up wiht your buffoonery of changing the theme of your site from jungles to selling books !

lol
Help me understand this dragon..

[nicpal]

Ok, I'm confused .. you dont think UDRP should put up wiht your buffoonery of changing the theme of your site from jungles to selling books !

lol
Help me understand this dragon..

Maybe it was The Jungle Book?

[draqon]

I don't really understand your question, I literally mean exactly what you said, that UDRP panelists shouldn't tolerate someone who registered a domain in good faith (such as to provide info on the amazon jungle) and then switched to bad faith ( selling books using the word Amazon).

[Banned: bidawinner]

I don't really understand your question, I literally mean exactly what you said, that UDRP panelists shouldn't tolerate someone who registered a domain in good faith (such as to provide info on the amazon jungle) and then switched to bad faith ( selling books using the word Amazon).

lol.. OK lol

I didnt see the word "IF" :emba:

as in IF you had registered amazon.net for goodfaith then after a couple years change it over or sell books..

I thought you said you "DID"

as in register amazon.net etc...

Now if you'll excuse me ..I'm going to hit the bartender up for last call

[namedropper]

It seems an obsolete and outdated requirement, if I had registered Amazon.net in 1992 in order to provide info on the amazon jungle, and then switched to selling books on my domain in 2000, I don't think panelists should tolerate that sort of buffoonery.

It's clear once you read it, it's only on skimming that this sounds wrong.

If he switches to books and is now infringing, it shouldn't be tolerated.

I think everyone is in agreement. I don't remember any decisions in which the infringement was tolerated simply because it was recent and not when it was registered, and it doesn't sound like their typical response.

[draqon]

Dan, if that is true, then it seems logical that ICANN should change the UDRP criteria to remove the 'registered in bad faith' clause and keep the 'used in bad faith' one. There shouldnt be a mismatch between the written regulations and the way they are enforced.