Respondent admits that there has been no actual use. Respondent indicates that due to other priorities there has been no actual preparation for use. Significantly, Respondent has not provided any evidence, or even any speculation, about Respondent being commonly known by that name or having a legitimate noncommercial or fair use intention in relation to the disputed domain name. I therefore conclude that Respondent DOES NOT have rights or legitimate interest with respect to the domain name at issue. In support of the contention of Respondent s bad faith registration and use, Complainant notes speculation about a bad faith intent.
Respondent notes that there is no evidence of a bad faith intent.
Respondent has not shown any good faith need for retention of the domain name. However, the current standards require that the Complainant affirmatively demonstrate bad faith under specified guidelines. There was no evidence of communication between the parties. Nor was there any evidence that the Respondent has engaged in such conduct in other circumstances. Of course, this would not prevent such a finding if, in the future, there is evidence that Respondent has proceeded in bad faith.