"Finding that Respondent has an unrebutted “potential” interest in the domain name, it is not necessary to discuss bad faith, but the Panel chooses to do so. In a case like this one, where there is no attempt to “target” Complainant’s interest in Complainant’s mark to capitalize on the good will associated with a three-letter mark, widely used by others, the subsequent use for “click-through” revenue is not enough. "
The respondent , Abstract Holdings International LTD contended that he has registered the domain name on March 2000,earlier than the first use of the mark.Therefore,the respondent contended that the domain name registrations couldn't have been in bad faith .
The Panel ordered the disputed domain name to remain with Abstract Holdings International LTD.
You can read the decision here .



