Bridgestone Firestone, Inc., Bridgestone/Firestone Research,
Inc., and Bridgestone Corporation v. Jack Myers

This is an important decision where WIPO upheld the right of a
person to use to criticize Bridgestone
Firestone, which owned the domain

The panel decision said:

     The question presented in this case is whether fair use
     and free speech are defenses to a claim for transfer of
     a domain name under the Policy. Under Paragraph 4
     (c)(iii) of the Policy, noncommercial fair use is
     expressly made a defense, as noted above. Although free
     speech is not listed as one of the Policy's examples of
     a right or legitimate interest in a domain name, the
     list is not exclusive, and the Panel concludes that the
     exercise of free speech for criticism and commentary
     also demonstrates a right or legitimate interest in the
     domain name under Paragraph 4 (c)(iii). The Internet is
     above all a framework for global communication, and the
     right to free speech should be one of the foundations
     of Internet law.

     . . . 

     For all of the foregoing reasons, the Panel decides
     that although the Domain Name registered by Respondent
     is identical or confusingly similar to the trademarks
     in which the Complainants have rights, the Respondent
     has legitimate fair use and free speech rights and
     interests in respect of the Domain Name, and the
     Respondent has not registered and used the Domain Name
     in bad faith. The Panel therefore denies the claim of
     the Complainants for transfer of the Domain Name.
CPT Comment:

1.   The panel decision was correct in affirming that criticism
     of a firm is a legitimate basis for using the company name
     in a domain name.