Look at this http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2007/d2007-0215.html it is good that a complaint is denied because sockshop is generic and sockshop.co.uk should not entitle the owner of the company in UK to bar a registration of sockshop.com in US or anywhere else. However, although the panel said that it was insufficient evidence of bad faith, the domain name sockshop.com was never in use and if you check the domain name now, it is of other company, not the defendant. I haven't checked the owner of the domain name from whois record but I dont think it is still with a respondent. Probably, the domain name is already sold. Then, I just think what is the definition of bad faith circumstances. It really depends on opinion of the panel. I think the decision is right but the conduct of the respondent doesnt seem right. One more thing, why every panel tries to avoid deciding an issue of reverse domain name hijacking? Or maybe even if the panel decides that it is a rdnh, there is no punishment. So may be he can think that it is wasting his time to engage with this issue.