Respondent did not inform the date in which the domain name was registered. Respondent did not agree with Complainant's request. Complainant argues that Respondent failed to exercise due diligence, because, if she had, she would have easily discovered Complainant's trademark. The third condition, bad faith, is also met in this Panelist's opinion, and this will be further explained. In the Panelist's opinion, the number of domain names might be very large, but is finite.
Complainant is an element of circulation of wealth in the places where it operates.
She may register domains for future development, but only if third party's rights are not harmed by her activities. Therefore, those who register domain names for future use, as the Respondent, must exercise due diligence and search for third parties' trademarks, or bear the burden of loosing the registration, as in this case. In other words, those who act as the Respondent simply have a higher likelihood of loosing their domain to complainants, which have acquired trademark rights, rather than companies, which register the domains for actual and present use in the Internet.