So, if we look at those elements there are really three things that a complainant has to establish in order to prevail. The first is they have to have trademark rights. So, they need to establish that they’re the owner of a distinctive mark and have used that mark in commerce. Alongside that first element, they need to show that the domain name that’s subject to the UDRP is confusingly similar to the actual trademark that they have rights in. So, number one is looking at trademark rights and confusing similarity, there’s ways to attack those. The second element would be legitimate use. The complainant does not have to establish legitimate use but rather show that the use that’s being made by the respondent is not legitimate. So, that’s really a ripe area for defense because if there is a way to establish that the respondent’s registration and/or use is legitimate, meaning for a legitimate business, maybe demonstrable preparations to use in connection with a legitimate business, things along those lines. Then the third element is known as bad faith. And what’s important to recognize is that under the UDRP, the complainant must establish not only bad faith registration but also bad faith use. Those are two separate factors that sometimes complainants try and analyze as one, but in actuality, any good respondent and domain name attorney representing that respondent, can analyze both of those individually. If at the time that the domain was registered, the complainant didn’t even own a trademark, common law or otherwise, then there can’t be any bad faith registration and the complaint must fail. Looking at those three elements is really where you can find defenses that are worth pursuing as part of response to the UDRP.
but still... They lost It. just like the Beatles did, against the same fruit on Their studio/recording name cmiiw 
