The Panel notes, however, that [Automattic] did not provide documentary evidence establishing this purchase of the disputed domain name for $100,000.00 and therefore the Panel declines to give that claim full credibility without such proof, which would have been easy for [Automattic] to provide and which should be [Automattic’s] burden to provide if the Panel were to rely on that claim as proof of rights.
Further, [Automattic] is purportedly using the disputed domain name in connection with a blogging site as per its Attached Exhibit ( home page).
I want to say a few things about this case but I’m not going to get emotional about it nor will I publish any comments that come across as hostile, abusive or potentially defamatory.
My interest is to point out a few things that do not seem prominent in the discussions I’ve seen to date and to do so from a hopefully dispassionate legal perspective.
However, Complainant failed to bring that proof to the Panel.” Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the UDRP says this: b. For the purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: …
(iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.” According to the Panel, Pearson hadn’t adduced evidence to this effect. At the date of writing this post, still redirects to and let’s not forget that is now an Automattic property.[Automattic’s] premise is contradicted by this governmental proof of legal rights.The Panel finds that [Pearson] has made out a prima facie case that [Automattic] lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that [Automattic] has not rebutted that prima facie case.The second element of the Panel’s reasoning that I want to zoom in on is this: “[Pearson] claims that [Automattic’s] use of the disputed redirects to a webpage owned by Respondent.The Panel suggests that the submissions might point toward use by [Automattic] that would support findings of bad faith, pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) if evidence had been adduced to that effect.The registrant of a domain name agrees to submit to the dispute resolution process in its contract with the registrant.The UDRP process is not, however, the only means by which a person can seek a remedy when feeling aggrieved by another person’s registration of a domain name that conflicts with existing trademark rights.[Automattic] argues that such use serves as an invitation to Internet users to discuss, object, and debate certain topical issues.Panels have found rights and legitimate interests where a respondent was hosting a noncommercial website. Yet, here as well, [Automattic] provides nothing more than the invitation to engage in such activities.However, [Pearson] failed to bring that proof to the Panel. The Panel therefore finds that [Pearson] failed to meet the burden of proof of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). The Panel does not adopt [Automattic’s] contention that the domain name is comprised entirely of a common term that has many meanings apart from use in [Pearson’s] THESIS mark.…” So, in essence, the first of the three required elements was clearly satisfied given Pearson’s trademark rights and the second element was satisfied because Automattic had not rebutted Pearson’s case that Automattic has no rights or legitimate interests in the domain name