Quote:
Originally Posted by
SiriusBuzz
Quote:
at the time of the purchase Sirius XM was NOT a trademarked name. He had just as much right to that name as anyone else.
Both Sirius and XM have their respective trademarks at the time.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anticyb...Protection_Act
Quote:
In order for a trademark owner to bring a claim under the ACPA, the owner must establish
the trademark owner’s mark is distinctive or famous;
"Sirius/XM" were obviously a well known brands at the time.
the domain name owner acted in bad faith to profit from the mark; and
Obvious also the case, he never did anything with the website, his only intention was hoping Sirius XM would buy the name from him for an astronomical sum.
the domain name and the trademark are either identical or confusingly similar (or dilutive for famous trademarks). Obviously also the case here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uniform...olution_Policy
Quote:
A complainant in a UDRP proceeding must establish three elements to succeed:
The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
The registrant registered the domain name and is using it in "bad faith."
Quote:
In a UDRP proceeding, a panel will consider several non-exclusive factors to assess bad faith, such as:
Whether the registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark;
The fact that he has done nothing with the site essentially proves his intentions.