A complainant in a UDRP proceeding must establish three elements to succeed:
The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
The registrant registered the domain name and is using it in "bad faith".
In a UDRP proceeding, a panel will consider several non-exclusive factors to assess bad faith, such as:
Whether the registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark;
Whether the registrant registered the domain name to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, if the domain name owner has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; and
Whether the registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
Whether by using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to the registrant's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark.
In this case, I don't think that bad faith could be established, so Canonical may have to adjust their policy to reflect certain use cases in domain names to be completely accurate.
A complainant in a UDRP proceeding must establish three elements to succeed:
The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights;
The registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name; and
The registrant registered the domain name and is using it in "bad faith".
In a UDRP proceeding, a panel will consider several non-exclusive factors to assess bad faith, such as:
Whether the registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark;
Whether the registrant registered the domain name to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, if the domain name owner has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; and
Whether the registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or Whether by using the domain name, the registrant has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, internet users to the registrant's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark.
In this case, I don't think that bad faith could be established, so Canonical may have to adjust their policy to reflect certain use cases in domain names to be completely accurate.