At the time of the Response, Respondent continued to be an authorized retailer of Complainant's trademarked goods. Respondent avers that prior to this dispute, Respondent had informed Complainant of its plans to develop a web site to promote Respondent's sales of Complainant's trademarked goods. In its Joint Reply, Complainant challenges or contradicts several of Respondent's representations. Joint Reply at 2. Complainant vehemently denies that it ever consented Respondent's Internet plans and expressly states that it never consented to the domain name registrations.
Complainant also contradicts Respondent's purported evidence of consent.
Based on the evidence of record, the Panel is persuaded that Complainant has failed to establish the second element necessary for a finding that Respondent engaged in abusive domain name registration. As a longtime seller of Complainant's skateboarding products, Respondent had a legitimate interest in the domain names that are the subject of this dispute. Moreover, Respondent's use of the domain names to sell and promote Complainant's genuine goods is arguably a legitimate, fair use.