Mark Monitor is usually out there to protect the intellectual interests of their clients. Recently they had to look out for their own ip assets and won a UDRP with regards to the name MarkMonitors.com. This was an obvious slam dunk as the respondent did not even respond. The panelist did make note that the respondent has made many registrations of “dubious legitimacy.”
Assisting the Panel in its conclusions regarding this element of the Policy is the Complainants’ accepted contention that the Respondent has registered thousands of domain names, with many of such registrations of dubious legitimacy. Moreover, confirmation of the Respondent’s propensity toward abusive cybersquatting behavior is suggested in the numerous adverse rulings rendered against the Respondent by prior UDRP panels, as kindly submitted for the Panel’s notice in the Complaint. Ergo, the Panel believes that Policy paragraph 4(b)(ii) is also applicable in sustaining a finding of bad faith regarding the Respondent’s actions in this case. See, inter alia, Kiss Nail Products, Inc. v. E-Promote, WIPO Case No. D2009-1303; Pfizer Inc., Pfizer Ireland Pharmaceuticals v. E-Promote, WIPO Case No. D2009-0532; VeriSign Inc. v. Domain Admin, E-Promote, WIPO Case No. D2006-1501.
As a result, the Panel finds that the Complainants have proven that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
