The domain owner filed a federal case on this domain to stop the turn over

http://www.elliotsblog.com/webquest-files-lawsuit-over-hayward-com-1087

Things like this tend to make their way through the elitists grapevine very fast. This case will become the norm rather than the exception if it’s left standing.

Furthermore, ICANN thru its Gestapo agents, like WIPO, is simply a “non-profit” club redefining itself (for-profit) every opinion.

Finally when you are $20K into it plus another $7K in legal/UDRP – and the complainant knows they have an uphill battle – it is probably worth finding at least another $20K to challenge it in Federal Court. Certainly the city of Hayward, itself, might be willing to muddy the waters as well.

Brian

Just another frivolous case that will help to clog the legal system further, and only caused frustration, simply to end where it began.

Very good points.

“informative – though not decisive.”

Means to me that it was taken into account as a factor, one important enough to mention in detail although not dispositive.

“”in the Panel’s opinion, the purchase price of 20k far exceeded typically expected returns, even with a PPC program”"

What does the panel base this on?

Does the panel have any expertise on what domain typically sell for or what a “typically expected return”?

From their discussion I would say the answer is clearly no.

Therefore since they don’t know a thing about domain valuation or what a “typically expected return” is, how can they offer any opinion on this in a formal legal proceeding.

However, it was obviously *not* “information”, but instead “disinformation”. We’ll see how it goes in the courts. I think the pool company will lose, when all facts are considered. At best, they might get minor money damages, but that in no way implies they are entitled to the domain name itself.

The Panel clearly states that the purchase price is “informative – though not decisive.” It references the purchase price because, in the Panel’s opinion, the purchase price of 20k far exceeded typically expected returns, even with a PPC program. The main issue was the fact that the domainer was profiting from the Hayward trademark by utilizing PPC advertising that linked to competitor’s products. How is that “fair use?” Even if the domain was purchased for 1k, same result. In my opinion, unlikely there will be a new “how much did I pay for that domain name” test that’s determinative in future decisions.

Thanks for the post. -Roger