It is asked (see Comments below), Why is a domain name composed of common words and/or a descriptive phrase forfeit to a complainant who holds an identical or confusingly similar trademark? Take as an example <hotrussianbride.com> ordered transferred on proof that the Complainant holds a U.S. trademark on the Principal Register for HOT RUSSIAN BRIDES. As between the domain name and the trademark there is a two letter difference, an “s” is dropped from “Russian” and the plural BRIDES is made singular. Because the Respondent defaulted in Romantic Tours, Inc. v. Ilia Zavialov, FA0906001268898 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 30, 2009) the record is limited to the Complainant’s contentions and proof.

A mirror image question can be asked by a complainant, Why is it denied transfer of the disputed domain name identical to its trademark? The disputed name in Aspenwood Dental Associates, Inc. v. Thomas Wade, D2009-0675 (WIPO July 21, 2009) could not be more descriptive, <coloradodentalimplantcenter.com>.

For both, there is a short answer and a long one. The short answer is that without any explanation or evidence from the respondent it is more likely than not the Panel will accept the complainant’s proof. The reverse is true when the question comes from the complainant, namely sufficient proof from the respondent combined with insufficient proof from the complainant will likely favor the respondent.

In Romantic Tours the Respondent sanitized its website after the proceedings commenced, but previously the disputed domain name resolved to a website that displayed click-through links that further resolved to the websites of Complainant’s competitors. The Panel concluded that the Respondent was a typosquatter; that it chose the domain name for its trademark value from which it derived income from click through fees.

In Aspen the Panel held that the Complainant had not met its burden of proving that it had any common law rights. It “has provided no evidence whatsoever that it has used its mark in commerce since June 2006, the date of first use in commerce claimed in its USPTO application” and that its “conclusionary assertions that its mark is ‘famous’ [is] similarly unsupported and in this Panel's opinion def[ies] common sense” (FtNote 3).

Parties win or lose on their submissions. Merit is judged on proof; nothing comes from nothing.