The FAQ links to an account of an attempted takeover of the domain that I found fascinating to read: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d200

The FAQ links to an account of an attempted takeover of the domain that I found fascinating to read: http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006-0655.html http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/decisions/html/2006/d2006... Some interesting excerpts: > vii) it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark considering the fame and tradition of the trademark GAIL I have personally never heard of GAIL and found it funny that this was part of the complaint. They even move on from "unlikely" to "fact" when accusing the owners of gail.com that they were acting in bad faith: > Furthermore, because the Respondent registered the domain name exactly when the Complainant increased its sales of GAIL products to the United States, this should be identified as an abusive practice. Lastly, the Respondent knew about the existence of the Complainant and of its GAIL trademark and nevertheless proceeded with the registration of the domain name. The owners of gail made a counter-claim: > (d) Reverse Domain Name Hijacking > The Respondent alleges that the Complainant is using the Policy in bad faith for reverse domain name hijacking. The arbiters ended up deciding that the owners of gail.com had a "legitimate interest" in operating the domain name, so they didn't comment on GAIL's accusation of bad faith. (As someone who really detests IP law in its various forms, I've always found it unnerving that domain names can be seized simply based on whether a third party thinks your use is "legitimate" or not.)