nice to have something that can be referenced:
The consensus view of recent Experts’ meetings has been that mere registration of a company name at the Companies Registry does not of itself give rise to any rights for this purpose.The validity of a trade mark application has not yet been determined and ordinarily it affords the proprietor no legal right to prevent others from using the mark. In and of itself an application will not constitute ‘Rights’ under the Policy.If the Complainant’s mark is a logo, the Complaint should acknowledge the fact and address the point (i.e. explain why the logo and the domain name should be treated as similar).Deciding to sell a domain name at a profit is unlikely of itself to constitute an abusive intent, unless this was the registrant’s intent at time of registration of the domain name and the circumstances set out in paragraph 3(i)A of the Policy apply. Trading in domain names is of itself unobjectionable (see paragraph 4(d) of the Policy).In certain circumstances, evidence of non-use of a ‘.uk’ domain name may persuade an Expert that the domain name in issue is an Abusive Registration, but Nominet was concerned to ensure that non-use of a domain name should not automatically be regarded as indicative of abusive intent.it's much like the wipo overview for the udrp:1.Where the domain name registration pre-dates the coming into existence of the Complainant’s rights, the act of registration is unlikely to lead to a finding of Abusive
Registration. It is not possible to be categoric on this point, because it is not inconceivable that a finding of Abusive Registration could result in circumstances where the Respondent effected the registration in breach of an obligation of confidence and with knowledge of the Complainant’s plans.
2. Ordinarily, provided that the Respondent has done nothing new following the coming into existence of the Complainant’s rights to take advantage of those rights, the Respondent’s use of the domain name is unlikely to lead to a finding of Abusive Registration.
3. However, where the domain name is connected to a parking page operated on behalf of the Respondent by a third party (eg a hosting company), the Respondent is unlikely to be able to escape responsibility for the behaviour that third party.