[dangrossman]

Think about it from the view of the consumer, who trademarks and the UDRP are meant to protect.

Let's say you registered Xbox.com 15 years ago and only now launch a gaming device there. Should you be allowed to profit from this name Microsoft spent the last decade associating with their product on the open market? Is there a likelihood of people assuming a relationship to Microsoft when they visit this site?

Yes, irrelevant of when you started working, it would be in the best interest of consumers to let Microsoft have that domain. You have to think of domains as something like a brand mark, not a single piece of personal property you own. If you disagree with this process you essentially disagree with the principle of trademark protection.

Of course, if you registered Xbox.com 15 years ago and today launched a cardboard packaging company there, you'd have no problem and the panel would not give that domain to Microsoft. Nissan Motors lost its dispute for Nissan.com because the site is a computer company, not an auto company.

[RexRollman]

That's bullshit. That would mean every domain name out there could be taken by somebody with a trademark application, a pen, and the application fee. Sorry, but just owning a trademark shouldn't be enough to grab a domain, particularly if the domain existed prior to the issuing of the trademark.

[dangrossman]

There's no need to play the "would mean" game -- this is the system that already exists today. I described the rationale behind the current trademark and UDRP system... a system that has been in place since 1999. Is it "bullshit"? Do you see domains getting stolen left and right?

Anyone with a trademark, a pen, and an application fee can take anyone else's domain -- IF the actual use of that domain is creating a likelihood of confusion with the mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliate or endorsement of the website.