Interesting.
The lack of any references in the 5446 decision to the trademark or any use of the domain precludes confirmation that the standard has in fact been met. This I would say is a quintessential example of a problem. The decision itself must at least contain the facts that were found so as to support the decision.
ALSO, this raises the issue of the 2nd bite at the apple. We have no idea if the facts changed during the 9 month period (e.g. Was there any conflicting use of the domain). The decision is simply devoid of any references.
This speaks both to a possible lack of application of the proper standard. However, it also tends to show that the panelists are not well informed as to what is required in any decision. This would seem to be an NAF issue resulting from a lack of administrative review of the decision for complaince AND in ensuring that panelists are properly educated and qualified.
I wanted to point out two default cases between the same complainant and respondent relating to the same domain name that came our differently about 9 months apart.
I am not commenting on the substance or what it means (I assume that there will be differing interpretations), but just wanted to share them with the group.
1635446 | boucheron.pub | Boucheron Holding SAS v. zhouhaotian et al. | URS | 08/31/2015 | Suspended
Default | 09/15/2015 |
1676556 | boucheron.pub | Boucheron Holding SAS v. zhouhaotian et al. | URS | 05/25/2016 | Claim Denied
Default | 06/12/2016 |
Best,
Jon