though I don’t think the domain was registered in bad faith initially.
That's my point, no matter if it seems morally right or wrong, that is is the ONLY question (of 3) the CDRP/UDRP can ask to do concerning bad faith registration. But rogue panelists tend to want to do "the court's work" and misuse the CDRP instead of pushing it into the proper legal channels. And then other Complainants cite these idiotic precedents against other domain owners and we have more problems.
Was the domain registered in bad faith? Yes or No? Not now, not yesterday, but the second it was initially registered., Yes or No? Simple.
Of course the Respondent would likely lose the domain in a real court case (due to the contract), but should legally win it in a CDRP/UDRP because the requirements are very very different and very specific.
This is why I always feel the CDRP is 110% slanted towards the Complainant, as this exact same complaint has been defeated on many, many, many UDRPs and it's SOP to recommend taking this type of case to a real court. But bring it as a CDRP and our pro-corporate panelists are jumping all over themselves to misuse the CDRP and create dangerous case precedent.
Put these yahoo CDRP panelists in family court and they'd probably create precedent on Roe vs. Wade, add 5 new sections to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, change the Criminal Code significantly, while also heavily revising the CRA's tax laws.
Just stick to the &%$#@ CDRP and stop playing God.