clearer fitflop sling grey argument

Description

Registering the domain name primarily to offer it  fitflop sale for greater than documented from pocket expenditures, see Policy, paragraph four(b)(i).Registering the domain title to stop the owner in the trademark from
reflecting the mark within a domain name, in which there is a pattern of such conduct,see Policy, paragraph four(b)(ii).Registering the domain title primarily to disrupt the company of the competitor,
see Policy, paragraph 4(b)(iii).Making use of the domain title to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain,
Net users for your internet web-site or other on line location, by building a likelihood of fitlop grain tumbled
confusion with complainants mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or
endorsement, see Policy, paragraph four(b)(iv).

Within the Panels see, the truth that the www.torybirch.com internet site contains a statement
that the domain name may be for sale by its owner does not establish that it was fitflop walkstar sandals
registered primarily to offer it for over Respondents out-of-pocket charges.

It’s not clear from Complainants reference to other domain title disputes involving
Respondent that Complainant intends to present that Respondent has engaged in a
pattern of bad faith registration under the Policy, paragraph four(b)(ii). Absent a clearer fitflop sling grey argument, the Panel does not so conclude.