The Policy requires complainants to prove that the domain name, in the hands of the current Registrant, is an Abusive Registration.  In order to show that the domain name is an Abusive Registration, the Complainant must prove that the domain name either:

• At the time when the registration or acquisition took place, took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to your [the Complainant's] Rights; OR
  

• Has been used in a manner which took unfair advantage of or was unfairly detrimental to your [the Complainant's] Rights

...or both.

What does that mean?
The test relies on the definition of rights, so if you are unclear of what they are then please read the 'Rights' page first.

The test does two things:

1. It covers both (a) the time of registration and (b) later use; and
2. It requires that there is unfair advantage taken of, or unfair detriment done to, the rights.

Timing
It is enough for the Complainant to show that the 'abuse' occurred at any time during the 'life' of the domain name - so that can be:

• There was an 'unfair' motive when it was registered;
• There was an 'unfair' use after registration but it has now stopped;
• There was an 'unfair' motive at transfer;
  
• There is something 'unfair' going on now;
  
• The domain name is inherently 'unfair' (similar to the concept of an "instrument of fraud" in the Court of Appeal case One In a Million);
• Any combination of these.

There are situations in which it is clear that the registration was 'fair' (because the parties agreed at the time, or did not object) but the use later becomes unfair (because there is a change of use, a falling out between the parties or a change of motive).

There are situations where it is difficult to know what the registrant had in mind at the time of registration, but their later use is clearly 'unfair'. This can be dealt with by inferring that the 'unfair' motive existed at the start, or simply by dealing with the 'unfair' activity when it happens.

There are situations where the registration may or may not have been 'unfair' but the registration is inherently problematic and so the problem is ongoing - for an example of this in the courts, see citigroup.co.uk.

Do you have any examples of an Abusive Registration?
The questions below mirror paragraph 3 of the DRS Policy, so it is useful for either side to consider whether the answer to these questions is "yes" (which would tend to help the Complainant) or "no" (which would tend to help the Respondent).

In these questions "you" means "the Complainant".

• Has the Respondent offered to sell the domain name(s) for more than the Respondent paid for it? If so, did the Respondent approach you with the offer to sell, or did you approach them?  

• Has the domain name been registered with the primary purpose of stopping you from using it?

• Is the Respondent known to your business, for example, a competitor or an ex-employee? Or were they your distributor?
  

• Has the domain name been used to confuse Internet users? If you are suggesting that users are confused by the registration of the domain name by the Respondent, how you say they are confused, why they are confused, what the effect of the confusion is, and preferably any proof that it has actually caused confusion (rather than just that it is 'likely' or 'obviously' going to do so).
  

• Does the Respondent have a history of registering domain names which relate to trade marks in which they have no apparent rights, and if so, is this part of that trend? This does not necessarily have to be restricted to .uk domain names: generic endings such as .com and .org may be relevant too.
  

• Has the Respondent given Nominet provably false information about his name and address, and is there independent proof of this? For these purposes, you, and anyone employed by you is probably not independent.
  

• Did the domain name become registered to the Respondent as a result of previous dealings between you, and if so, have you been using and paying for it ever since?
  

• Has the Respondent been through the DRS before? If so, has an Expert   stated 3 or more times in the last two years that the Respondent has made an Abusive Registration?

As a Respondent, how do I show that the Registration was not 'abusive'?
To show that your registration is not 'abusive' it is helpful to put yourself in the Complainant's shoes and look at the questions above. What factors are there that would make an independent observer say that the registration and use are 'fair' and that the answers to the questions above are 'no'?

Anything you think which would tend to suggest this is probably something you should include (and prove) in your response, as that is the information which will best help you. Paragraph 4 of the policy makes some suggestions about the topics you could cover, but these are mainly answers to the points above.

More generally, provided that your registration and use was 'fair', it is better to put a full explanation of your motives and conduct in as a response than to stay silent as then you have the opportunity of mediation and you are better presented at any decision.