From what I understand, if the rapid suspension system exists it will be used first, regardless of the rulebook. One lawyer’s “genuine contestable issue” is another lawyer’s “no way that applies here” issue. Why start everything with an assumption of guilt?

What I would love to see, but never will, is a hearing where specific made up examples of potentially conflicting domains are presented for debate as to whether they are suitably “contestable” or not. That would be so revealing… too revealing probably. But one thing seems certain — affiliates will get screwed because they ride the line called opportunity, time is money, and opportunity waits for no one.

“Where there is any genuine contestable issue as to whether a domain name registration and use is an abusive use of a trademark, the complaint will be denied terminating the URS process without prejudice to further action, e.g., a UDRP or court proceeding. The URS is not intended for use in any questionable proceedings, but only clear cases of trademark abuse.

Finally, as a balance of fair interests and to prevent abusive use of the process, any trademark owner found to repeatedly misuse the URS, for example for anti-competitive purposes or to violate free speech, will be removed from the system and denied access to the URS for a set period of time.”