aactive said:
I didn't know that owning a domain name and holding it for future plans isn't allowed.
Go read a pile of CDRPs and find out the incredible answer to that.
The CDRP is based on the UDRP, but while the US cases are filled with "the IPO recognizes domain investment as a viable business use" the CDRP does not. Passive holding for a "future business" also doesn't hold water unless you have a stack of paperwork to back it up.
The CDRPs are eerily all the same - does the Complainant meet the requirements? Does the Respondent have a legitimate interest in the domain? No? Bam! Domain Transferred.
Without an active Legitimate Interest, the CDRP is almost preordained and the Respondent must put forth verifiable evidence of this Legitimate Interest or it is almost an automatic Bad Faith then a transfer to the Complainant - the UDRP has a much higher bar for "Bad Faith Registration" while the CDRP doesn't even seem to address this, and it's basically (unless you have an experienced lawyer) a rubber stamp at the end.
They're even giving away LLLs like ACU.ca, and remember that MyID CMI.ca case with the old Euro granny? They almost grabbed that one too, and without all those (cough) expensive invoices for research and development work, it would have been gone, just like ACU.ca got taken. And even with the paperwork, that panelist was just itching to steal it. And this is a 3-letter that is (without mitigating TM abuse factors) virtually-universally protected by the UDRP.
The only other recent instances of the CDRP being dismissed was FPL (repped by Zak M) and Behaviour (a dictionary word). Other than that, the CDRP seems to be a "Domain Transferred" rubber stamp and I know FPL would have been stolen too had Zak not been there.
