I don't think its bizarre, and I do think it would still end in the same result, if filed the same way. That case got the correct result, but I agree it was poorly executed by the panelist to get there. Clearly the domain and mark are clearly confusingly similar considering the spelling is off by one silent character. Its tough to argue that the domain was not a simple case of typo squatting, and rather was generic in nature. Crown (or Crowne) and Plaza don't naturally go together for any reason other than its trademarked usage. If it was truly generic in nature, there would be other instances of it being used by other existing domains and businesses as well, which of course it wasn't, so no such defense could be made. Furthermore, the registrant didn't make any attempt to help himself by providing any seemingly logical evidence as to a good faith reason why he registered that domain, or what it was to be used for. Evidence of the pattern of similar TM squatting registrations was most certainly the nail in the coffin required to prove bad faith in the mind of the panelist. However, it was a big mistake (IMO) on the panelist's part to not mention this fact to further establish bad faith, and instead, relied solely on the "offered it for sale" argument which is very weak (especially at a price less than the cost of a dispute!). He probably ignored it because he figured that's all he needed and that had he went down the "pattern of bad faith" evidence path, that would require more work and explanation which he was probably too lazy to thoroughly do. IMHO, it was ultimately the right decision, but poorly executed by taking what he thought was the easiest route to establish enough bad faith to justify the result. And that might have set or reinforced a poor precedent for other cases.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |