When you use a service which tends to boilerplate all of your pleadings, you sometimes get what you pay for. CitizenHawk does a variety of different online brand protection activities. But a bunch of what it does is automated and boilerplate.
Did Complainant assert Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant for more than Respondent paid?
Did Complainant assert Respondent registered the domain name to prevent the owner of the trademark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name and Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct?
Did Complainant assert Respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor?
Did Complainant assert Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its web site by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark?
Why didn’t Complainant make these arguments?
This Panel does not know.
This Panel is loath to make an argument for a party, especially one represented by an experienced representative. To make these arguments would require the Panel to assume facts not in evidence.
Complainant has failed to meet its burden of proof of bad faith registration and use under Policy
Respondent has not registered or used the domain name in bad faith if Respondent has not violated any of the factors listed in Policy ¶4(b) or engaged in any other conduct that would constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds Policy ¶4(a)(iii) NOT satisfied.