The domain name had a registration date of 1986 but was acquired by the domain holder in 2006.
The Complainant was brought by Octopustravel Group Limited of London.
Here is the relevant parts of the decision
“The Complainant is doing business as a retailer of hotel accommodation and related services throughout the world and has been trading under the name OctopusTravel since 1999.”
“Accommodation booked through the Complainant and its retailers covered more than 700,000 nights in 2010, and the Complainant’s global revenue amounted to $217.9 million in 2010 with marketing expenses in the amount of $4.8 million.”
“The Complainant provides its services on the Internet at “www.octopustravel.com”.
“The Complainant is the registered owner of numerous trademark registrations for “OCTOPUSTRAVEL”, inter alia International Registration No. 823144 OCTOPUSTRAVEL registered on November 24, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the “OCTOPUSTRAVEL Mark”). The Complainant’s trademark covers services in international classes 39, 41, 42 and 43.”
The disputed domain name was first registered in 1986 and was acquired by the Respondent on June 9, 2006.
The disputed domain name has been used in connection with a website providing information on octopi and travel related advertising.”
“The first point to be dealt with is the identity of the Respondent.”
“The Complainant named a total number of ten Respondents all allegedly being related somehow to the disputed domain name, including Alexander Rosenblatt and Yana Belkova. ”
“According to the information in the concerned registrar’s WhoIs database, the disputed domain name is registered in the name of Mr. Alexander Rosenblatt only. As per the Respondent’s plausible contentions, Alexander Rosenblatt is an alias of Yana Belkova. Therefore, the Panel will treat Yana Belkova aka Alexander Rosenblatt as sole Respondent in this proceeding. The Complainant’s contentions regarding the relations of the other alleged Respondents to the disputed domain name are irrelevant.”
“The disputed domain name consists of the term “octopus”, which is included in the Complainant’s OCTOPUSTRAVEL Mark”
“The fact that the Complainant’s trademark contains an additional element, namely the word “travel”, does not hinder a finding of confusing similarity.”
“”Based on the evidence before the Panel, the Panel cannot find any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent. ”
“Although the disputed domain name consists only of a generic term, the Respondent has not provided any persuasive evidence under paragraph 4(c) of the Policy for the following reasons:”
“The website available at the disputed domain name contains advertising links to the Complainant’s competitors (i.e., bookings.com). ”
“It is well established that there is no bona fide offering of goods and services where the use of the disputed domain name for such offering constitutes a trademark infringement.”
“Furthermore, the Respondent has not shown that she is commonly known by the disputed domain name or is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name.”
“In addition, the Respondent, having once worked for the Complainant, was obviously aware of the Complainant at the time when she purchased the disputed domain name and therefore registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. ”
“The mere registration of a generic word as a domain name will only be sufficient in and of itself to create a legitimate interest if the domain name is registered in good faith ”
“Panels have recognized that mere registration of a domain name, even one that is comprised of a confirmed dictionary word or phrase (which may be generic with respect to certain goods or services), may not of itself confer rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.”
“Normally, in order to find rights or legitimate interests in a domain name based on the generic or dictionary meaning of a word or phrase contained therein, the domain name would need to be genuinely used or at least demonstrably intended for such use in connection with the relied-upon meaning (and not, for example, to trade off third-party rights in such word or phrase).”
“Finally, the Panel is not satisfied that the website at the disputed domain name can seriously be considered as providing bona fide information on octopi; rather, it strikes the Panel as (at least) pretextual The generic use of “octopus” could well be plausible if for example combined with credible other supporting evidence, but even a superficial Google search reveals that the text about the cephalopod species that appears on the Respondent’s website appears wholly copied from other sites.”
“Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has proven that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name under paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c) of the Policy.”
“The Panel finds that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith.”
“As noted above, the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in 2006, by virtue of an acquisition from a third party. It is well established that a transfer of a domain name to a third party amounts to a new registration under the Policy”
“The Respondent, a former employee of the Complainant, admitted that she was aware of the Complainant at the time when she purchased the disputed domain name.”
“In the absence of the Respondent having established rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, her claims of having no intention to capitalize on likely confusion with the Complainant’s trademark lacks persuasiveness in the circumstances.”
“As to bad faith use, by using the disputed domain name in connection with a website offering advertising from the Complainant’s direct competitors, which constitutes an infringement of the Complainant’s right in its OCTOPUSTRAVEL Mark, the Respondent was, in all likelihood, trying to divert traffic intended for the Complainant’s website to its own for commercial gain. Such use and exploitation of trademarks to obtain commercial profit from the diversion of Internet users has in many decisions been found to be use in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.”
“Accordingly, the Panel finds that the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy have been met.”
“The Panel points out that, although the disputed domain name has been first registered back in 1986, the Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the Respondent’s acquisition of the disputed domain name by many years. Furthermore, although the disputed domain name may have a substantial value based on its generic meaning, this for itself is no basis to deny the Complaint. Even if a domain name is generic, there is always the possibility of a trademark infringement and the registrant of such domain name, especially one with such clear prior knowledge of a relevant rights holder’s trademark rights, has to be aware of this.”
So a generic domain gets taken in a UDRP from a trademark on a longer term that incorporates Octopus.
You would have to assume this domain was not a cheap acquisition in 2006 and the loss of the domain is a harsh penalty.