Indeed, if it were, the bad faith element would be tautological. Nor is there evidence that Respondent has used the domain name for commercial gain by attempting to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant s mark. Because Respondent has not actually used the site at all, there also is no evidence that she is not trying to confuse visitors, but, because the burden on each factor rests with Complainant, the Panel cannot infer bad faith without other evidence. If Respondent were to make use in the future and seek commercial gain by creating confusion, then Complainant might at that time have a better case, but that is not the circumstance presented here. See Nintendo Inc. v. Alex Jones , Case No.
Complainant argues that Respondent s delay in putting up any content shows bad faith.
Yet delay in putting up a site is not dispositive, particularly for an individual with limited website experience. See Fielding v. Corbert , Case No. Simply put, the evidence here is insufficient to justify a finding of bad faith. Instead, Respondent claims that she has a desire to use the domain name for a legitimate fan site and, if she follows through on that intention, it would not constitute the kind of abusive, bad faith cybersquatting that the Policy is designed to prevent. The Panel therefore denies the Complainant s request that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.