Non-profit wins three letter domain name in highly questionable ruling.

The non-profit Disabled American Veterans has won the domain name DAV.com through arbitration at National Arbitration Forum. The organization’s main web site is DAV.org.

This case gives me great consternation.

The truth is, the owner of the web site appeared to use all sorts of whois identities. And, a couple years ago, the domain name did show ads for veterans benefits. But none of these details are put forth by the complainant in its arguments, or at least it isn’t conveyed in arbitrator Bruce E. Meyerson’s decision. To hand over a three letter domain name, a panelist should require a strong burden of proof from the complainant. That doesn’t appear to have happened.

What is most concerning is how the arbitrator came to the conclusion that the domain name was registered and used in bad faith:

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered the dav.com domain name with the primary intent of reselling it for a substantial profit. Although the Respondent denies this allegation, the Panel concludes that Complainant’s assertion is reasonably supported by the record. Respondent has made no use of the domain name other than as described herein. The record indicates that Respondent owns 800 additional domain names, and previously has been found to be in the business of selling domain names for a profit. Grow.net, Inc. v. Walter Long d/b/a Domains.com, WIPO D2001-0902 (Oct. 22, 2001). Thus, the Panel concludes that a reasonable inference from the record is that Respondent registered and continues to use the domain name with the intent to sell it and accordingly has done so in bad faith under Policy

The case referred to by the panelist was for Grow.com. Grow.net, Inc. filed for arbitration to get the domain name from the respondent and lost. But naturally, the respondent offered to sell the generic domain name to Grow.net. As far as Meyerson is concerned, if you try to sell a generic domain name, then it can be inferred that all of your domain names were purchased with the intent to sell them. Further, simply offering to sell a domain is enough proof that you registered and used the domain name in bad faith, even if the domain name didn’t target the complainant, by Meyerson’s logic.

Proving that this domain was registered specifically to target Disabled American Veterans rather than simply because it was a three letter domain would be very difficult. Indeed, I doubt the domain was registered with the Veterans in mind.

You have to wonder if this case has to do more with the panelist being concerned about the explicit content hosted at DAV.com than the facts of the case. It also shows continued inconsistency amongst panels when it comes to three character domain names.

http://domainnamewire.com/2009/08/06/dis...name-case/