I beleive the decision was the correct one.
When reading the wipo decision it becomes clear that the respondant "Lyle Frampton" who also claims to be known as "Peter Frampton" (supposedly "peter" is his middlename) was taking advantage of the musician (guitarist), peter frampton's celebrity.
Here's some quotes from the hearing
"Shortly after Complainant's Counsel first contacted the Respondent, the Respondent modified its web site and removed the logos that resembled those on the Complainant's web site."
"The Respondent has placed links from the Respondentââ¬â¢s web site to sites where the Complainantââ¬â¢s musical recordings and videos can be purchased, along with text that reads "Peter Frampton Music / Videos!".
The Respondent also included on its web site a figure playing guitar, which is the instrument played by the Complainant."
BUT the respondant flatly denied this,
"The Respondent also states that, as to the Complainant: "The Singer Peter Frampton, Personal products & sales merchandise has never appeared & does not appear for sale with any of the other sales companies represented on this site during all five years."
However a quick check with wayback and its quite clear that the respondant was trying to sell peter framton music and videos.
http://web1.archive.org/web/20010721135550/http://www.peterframpton.com/
So what can you say when someone registers a name of a famous person and then trys to sell their merchdise with the name, and then tries to deny it all, I can't see how that could demonstrate good faith or legitimate use?
