Interesting one this:
- Respondant didn't respond to the DRS at all
- Complainant seemed to rely on the fact that this guy has at least 5 DRS against him, and was going for the automatic ruling.
However, the expert said that it didn't necessarily mean that this domain was abusive. " Although registered in the same period, the nature of the name in this case does not persuade the Expert to accept that the Domain Name is part of the same pattern."
However, he goes onto say that one should presume it's abusive, but "Since the Respondent has not replied to the Complaint then clearly he has not rebutted the presumption had the Complainant established Rights"
Seems to imply that if you get more than 3 DRS against you, you can still rebut the presumption that further registrations are abusive.
Interesting reading!
- Respondant didn't respond to the DRS at all
- Complainant seemed to rely on the fact that this guy has at least 5 DRS against him, and was going for the automatic ruling.
However, the expert said that it didn't necessarily mean that this domain was abusive. " Although registered in the same period, the nature of the name in this case does not persuade the Expert to accept that the Domain Name is part of the same pattern."
However, he goes onto say that one should presume it's abusive, but "Since the Respondent has not replied to the Complaint then clearly he has not rebutted the presumption had the Complainant established Rights"
Seems to imply that if you get more than 3 DRS against you, you can still rebut the presumption that further registrations are abusive.
Interesting reading!
