> (1) the manner in which the domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and ht

> (1) the manner in which the domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_moron_in_a_hurry > (2) why the Respondent (domain-name holder) should be considered as having no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name(s) that is/are the subject of the complaint; and They were called Duck. Their early codecs were often referred to as Duck. Assorted patents are still assigned to The Duck Corporation. Why did DDG decide to infringe on their trademark? > (3) why the domain name(s) should be considered as having been registered and being used in bad faith It was registered by The Duck Corporation, and pointed to their home page. That corporation has eventually wound up as part of Google, and the domain now points to Google's home page. Seems pretty straightforward. > Domain squatting has nothing to do with who had it first. Trademarks have a lot to do with it. By the way, why is DuckDuckGo infringing on the trademark of the Oregon Ducks? What about Duck® Brand duct tape?