It also relies on a number of United States infringement cases. As noted, this is not the forum for resolving finally disputed intellectual property rights. The Respondent offers no explanation why it has a legitimate interest in the combination of words that form the subject domain name. The fact that a Respondent has no legitimate interest in a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a mark to which a Complainant has rights is not sufficient standing alone to establish bad faith. Evidence of similar conduct also does not establish bad faith, but it is not necessarily irrelevant.
Facts are relevant if they are logically probative of a material fact.
Similar fact evidence must be approached with caution, but it need not be ignored, indeed in appropriate circumstances, should not be ignored. An administrative panel must base its conclusion concerning bad faith on a consideration of all of the information made available to it. This can include facts which are relevant to whether a domain name is identical or confusingly similar and whether a Respondent has a legitimate interest in the domain name. In this case the Respondent has registered a domain name that essentially is identical to the Complainant s mark. No explanation for doing so is given.