The Panel reaches this conclusion with some reluctance, noting that the Domain Name, while corresponding to a mark (SMARTCON) registered by Complainant and another mark (SMARTCONTRACT) used by Complainant, consists of two generic words (smart contracts) that together have a generic meaning. It may have been the case that Respondent registered and sought to sell the Domain Name for its generic meaning and did so unaware of Complainant. However, Respondent has chosen not to participate in this proceeding and provide any explanation of its activities and there is no other evidence before me that would enable me to reach a conclusion that supports an absence of bad faith registration on the balance of probabilities. In such circumstances, I am entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in the Complaint, namely that Respondent opportunistically registered the Domain Name, which had been held by or by associates of Complainant for at least 8 years, in awareness of the Complainant and its reputation and sought to capitalize on this reputation by offering the Domain Name for sale. This amounts to registration and use in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(i)
