The only thing this shows is the inconsistency of the panels. Good decision I guess but I would like to see better consistency from these decisions. One week it's for a generic....the next it's against. I would never advise NOT to respond. That's a very dangerous thing as more often than not you lose the domain.
EDIT: After reading over this carefully..I don't even see how the respondent won. I change my mind...bad decicion.
I think if this case for a generic wins then others that have recently lost should be reviewed. There should be a UDRP appeal process. Maybe charge another fee to the loser for a second panel to look at...
Labrocca, I have to disagree with you here. It is a good decision because the panelist did what they were supposed to.
"In the present case, the Panel is not convinced either that the Respondent knew about the Complainants BEACHES Marks when it registered the disputed domain name. More specifically, the Panel is not satisfied that the Respondent had in mind the Complainant then the Respondent is domiciled in Canada, where the Complainant claims neither business activities nor trademark rights. The Panel is well aware that the Respondent has foregone the opportunity to explain it's motives in the present case, and the Panel believes that generally such behavior may give rise to inferences in this regard. Even so, in the absence of more specific indications in favor of the Complainants assertions, the Panel, on balance, finds it more likely than not that the Respondent registered the generic term beaches including a typing error in order to attract traffic looking for websites in relation to beach holidays and thus to generate revenue by providing sponsored links. In the present circumstances, insufficient evidence is before the Panel that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. Arguably, the situation may be different if the Respondents use would go beyond the generic meaning of the term.".
In the true sense of UDRPs, it is to provide relief for TMed names that were registered in bad faith against theTM holder. The panleist did what they were supposed to do. They did not believe that the domain owner registered the domain because of the TM holders TM.
Intel, not answering is the worst thing you can do in UDRPs...
Maybe I didn't word that exact enough. My surprise was/is indeed that they didn't respond and STILL got a ruling in their favor.
I no way would I ever recommend to just sit still and play dead. In this case it seemed to have worked and things took their course - thus, my surprise.
This decision was decided by one simple thing: the complainant did not satisfy.
All 3 conditions. At least, that's what the single panelist believed in this case. Why those sons of beachess.....
I have a new love of my life (Sorry, Keira Knightly.): http://www.grundy-le.de/images/conte...te_Joppich.jpg.
Don't know how I missed this one.
Thanks for restoring a little bit of faith in the system for me.
And just to add a good one of my own http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/d...2007-0003.html.
> Complaint denied.