If nothing else, domain name owners can use this case to find examples of what NOT to do when trying to sell a name:
1) Claim to have had an offer of $250,000 that you turned down and then in the next round of haggling say that you can see if you'll talk the partner into selling for $150,000. Hello, if he really had an offer for $250,000 he wouldn't be willing to sell $100,000 less. At this point he branded himself a liar, and a bad one at that.
2) Upon hearing that the name could be brought to dispute, suddenly and mysteriously transfer ownership of the name to a friend. Not only does this look suspicious, but the panelists of an upcoming UDRP hearing can look at the date of transfer as the new registration date. Owner
#1 might try to claim that it's not bad faith because he never heard of NHN (implausible considering where he was and his other names owned, but arguable), but it's damn unlikely that owner
#2 never heard of the same NHN that threatened his friend Owner
#1 before he gained ownership. Acting in such a way pretty much hands over a reasonable conclusion of bad faith on a silver platter.
3) After claiming to have sold the name to someone else, continue to take offers on the name. More lying. Bad faith again. He should have told the new person to contact Owner
#2 if the sale was legit (or he wanted to act like it was legit).
4) When asked to provide proof that you were actively developing a name, ignore it. I mean, come on, if he had been he could have proven it somehow. Even if he hadn't he could have come up with something. This implies that he doesn't really have a legit use. When the court asks you to walk the walk, at least make an effort to crawl, don't just sit there.
From my reading of the case, it sounds likely that they did get this specific acronym for the sole purpose of having the same name as a major portal in their country. So while it is possible to have another use for NHN.com, they didn't show anything and instead acted totally suspicious and underhanded. If they had just not transfered the ownership of the name and/or provided some sort of documentation they probably could have successfully navigated through this.
Would I have ruled against them if I were a panelist? Probably not, as the intials have inherent legitimate uses up the wazoo. But then I don't exactly blame the panelists for their ruling after all the shenanigans. If someone's acting like a crook it's all too easy to treat them as a crook.