I have made no claims whatsoever to be "holier than thou" yet you constantly iterate that you are in order to try and persuade others as to the veracity of your pronouncements regarding PTSC, the BoD and S&L.

Were it just one or two domain names that were registered I would have no problems but we both know that it was substantially more.

As to the law,

.

In Virtual Works, Inc. v. Volkswagen of America, Inc. (a dispute over the domain vw.net), the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals created a common law requirement that the cybersquatter exhibit a bad faith intent in order to confer liability. This means that domain names bearing close resemblance to trademarked names are not per se impermissible. Rather, the domain name must have been registered with the bad faith intent to later sell it to the trademark holder. This "bad faith" concept is reiterated in 15 U.S.C. § 1125 and U.S.C. § 1129.

.

and the findings,

.

The Domain Name has been Registered and is being Used in Bad Faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy)

The COMPLAINANT first registered the trademark SOUTH AMERICAN TOURS in 1996 and has been offering and organising travel to South American countries since the 1980s. The RESPONDENT registered the domain name in November 1999. The RESPONDENT has not provided any evidence suggesting that he registered the domain name in good faith or that it was and is being used in good faith. The evidence, by reason of the correspondence, indicates that the RESPONDENT registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling or renting it. The RESPONDENT did offer to sell the domain name to the COMPLAINANT but did not respond to an offer to purchase the domain name for a price that covered his expenses. The only offer was to sell for a price that was clearly to be in excess of those expenses.

The Panel finds that the circumstances in paragraph 4(b)(i) have been made out. Paragraph 4(b) provides that, if those circumstances are found to be present, they shall be evidence of both registration and use of the domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Panel finds that this element is present.

.

Despite the above, you still maintain that the decision was erroneous, " I am confident that even without providing any defense (like I did not do in that hearing), the name would not have been taken from me," and for this reason alone I will continue to question and, where necessary, counter any purported statements of fact you make that I disagree with.

As to "private personal attacks" I respectfully suggest that it has all been one way and from you. Obviously, if you can show me one post in which I denigrated you by all means provide a link, but I won't be holding my breath.

.

.

Be well