Relevant Decisions

Phusion Projects, LLC v. Rikin Shah, Forum FA2504002152127 <fourlokoboys. com>, Denied

The Domain Name does not resolve to an active website but the Panel is satisfied on the evidence before it that the Respondent has made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a website to promote its podcast which it offers under the name “Four Loko Boys”. These preparations include actually launching the podcast (including recording and releasing two, hour-long episodes on April 13, 2025 under the name) and registering a corresponding Instagram account for promotional purposes. While the evidence the Respondent has provided is limited (in particular Respondent has not provided a detailed plan for what the website will look like), this is understandable given that the Domain Name was registered on April 10, 2025, the podcast was launched on April 13, 2025 and the Complaint was filed on April 23, 2025…

GoSecure Inc. v. Billa Bhandari, Forum, FA2107001954083, <gosecure.com>, 3-member, Denied

The Panel notes that Respondent does not deny that the disputed domain name is currently inactive, although its proof does support the contention that for many years it was actively used. Rather, it contends that it has nonetheless continuously used the domain name for email operations… The Panel finds that Respondent’s rebuttal and evidence is persuasive on the issue of rights and legitimate interests. Accordingly, Complainant has not succeeded on this element of the Policy.

Gridiron Fiber Corp. and Lumos Telephone LLC d/b/a Lumos Networks v. Yui Quan, NAF FA2110001970005 <lumos.com>, 3-member, Denied, RDNH

While passive holding may be a factor in conjunction with other evidence to counter a respondent’s assertion of right or legitimate interests, it cannot be conclusive by itself as the above cited cases indicate. The Panel notes that Respondent is a professional domainer, and to her the Disputed Domain Name is stock-in-trade, just as a can of soup is for a grocer, an automobile is for an auto dealership, and a computer is for an electronics store. None of these merchants, nor any other, is required to make a functional use of its inventory in order to avoid the risk of it being taken away; Respondent should not be required to do so either. As such, Respondent’s passive holding of the Disputed Domain name is not inconsistent with or fatal to her claim of a legitimate interest. The same reasoning applies to passive holding with respect to the issue of bad faith.

Digest Commentary

• Digest Vol.5.19 <timesnow.com>, Denied, RDNH

-

Digest Vol. 3.49 <granitegearlab .com>, Denied

-

Digest Vol. 2.17 <mohu.com>, Transfer

-

Digest Vol. 2.12 <lionshead.com>, Transfer