Cybersqatting is illegal.

The COMPLAINANT asserts as a fact, and there is no dispute, that the home page for the domain name has not been used since its registration and no home page could be found under this domain. On May 22, 2001, the COMPLAINANT sent an email to the RESPONDENT asking whether the RESPONDENT intended to use the domain name or whether the COMPLAINANT could take over the domain name. By email on May 22, 2001, the RESPONDENT replied, asking whether the COMPLAINANT wished to purchase or lease the domain name, and stating "[i]f so, plans might be altered to accommodate you if the price or arrangement is lucrative enough". By a further email of June 5, 2001, the COMPLAINANT sought further information from the RESPONDENT about his present and future plans for the use of the domain name. The RESPONDENT replied on the same day, stating that it is not his policy to share business plans and domain strategies and further stating that the RESPONDENT and his partners would "... welcome and entertain your offers to purchase. We feel that the descriptive and generic aspect of the name makes it an ideal domain. We do not respond to offers that are inappropriate or respectful of the domains true marketable value". It would seem that there was some further correspondence as to any prior usage of the domain name and, in particular, the RESPONDENT’s assurance that no "adult" usage had occurred.

On June 18, 2001, the COMPLAINANT emailed the RESPONDENT and expressed the opinion that the RESPONDENT had only registered the domain name with the intention to sell it for more than the cost of acquisition. The COMPLAINANT asserted that the RESPONDENT had no "adequate right to own the domain" and that the RESPONDENT would mislead the public and endanger the COMPLAINANT’s trademark if he were to use the domain name. The COMPLAINANT asked the RESPONDENT to co-operate with the COMPLAINANT and the COMPLAINANT offered to reimburse the registration fees and pay a further $US1,000.00. The COMPLAINANT nominated June 21, 2001, for a reply, failing which the COMPLAINANT said that it would hand the matter to its lawyers. No further reply was received from the RESPONDENT and no agreement was reached.

The Domain Name had been Registered and is Being Used in Bad Faith

The COMPLAINANT relies upon a presumption of bad faith in circumstances that fall within those of paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. In particular, the COMPLAINANT relies upon paragraph 4(b)(i), which provides that circumstances indicating registration or acquisition of the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting or otherwise transferring the domain name to the COMPLAINANT who is the owner of the trademark for valuable consideration in excess of out-of-pocket expenses that relate directly to the domain name are, if found, evidence of both registration and use of the domain name in bad faith. The COMPLAINANT relies upon the correspondence in which the RESPONDENT stated, inter alia, that the price would have to be "lucrative enough" and the fact that the RESPONDENT made no RESPONSE to a direct offer by the COMPLAINANT to reimburse the RESPONDENT for out-of-pocket expenses and to pay $US1,000.00.

http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2001/d2001-0950.html

CYBERSQUATTING, plain, simple, and it is still ongoing.

What are your motives?

.

.

.

Be well