This is an arbitration decision that took away the domain, and gave it to Hearst Magazines, the publisher of
Esquire, the US mens magazine.  There was apparently evidence
that the original domain name holder,,  had plans to use
this as a vanity email address.  This is from the dissent in the
opinion, written by Milton Mueller:

     "There is growing precedent within US law and within
     the UDRP that resale of domain names per se is not
     evidence of actionable bad faith. (See Avery Dennison
     Corp. v. Jerry Sumpton, D.C. Case No. CV-97-00407-JSL,
     Appeal No. 98-55810; General Machine Products Co., Inc
     v. Prime Domains NAF 0001000092531 re:,
     and Allocation Network GbmH v Steve Gregory, WIPO Case
     D2000-0016 re: 

     "Which leads to the issue of's status in this
     proceeding. Respondents offered proof that Spencer sold
     the domain name to a party with a legitimate,
     non-infringing interest in the name. provided
     evidence from 1997 - three years before this dispute -
     of plans to use the domain name as a vanity email
     address. Complainant Hearst offered no evidence or
     argumentation to challenge the intent or validity of
     this transaction. The Avery Dennison v. Sumpton
     precedent is directly applicable to this case, as the
     ruling specifically upholds the right of a domain name
     registrant to resell use of a domain name as a vanity
     address even when the character string of the second
     level domain name corresponds to someone's trademark.

     "I emphatically dissent from the majority opinion's
     statement that's rights "are subject to
     whatever defects Spencer's claim may face." I find
     their contention that a subsequent permissible use
     cannot be considered as an important factor in this
     case to be insupportable. The majority panelists have
     decided - without any direct evidence - that Spencer's
     sole original intent was to sell the name to Esquire
     Magazine. When faced with the clear fact that Spencer
     sold the name to someone else, they say that this sale
     is invalid because of Spencer's imputed original
     intent. The argument is entirely circular, and has no

     "The UDRP is intended to prevent trademark owners from
     being extorted by cybersquatters, but it is also
     intended to protect legitimate registrations from being
     threatened by overreaching trademark owners. A correct
     application of the spirit and letter of the UDRP gives
     each of these concerns equal weight. The majority
     opinion fails to balance these concerns. Absent any
     evidence that the original registrant was trading
     specifically on the value of the Esquire Magazine mark,
     I cannot conclude that the name was registered in bad

CPT Comment:

1.   The decision should not have overlooked evidence
     of proposed legitimate uses of the domain name. 
     In this, case, as a domain for personal email addresses. 
     The registration of a trademark for the word Esquire in
     connection with the magazine does not prevent others from
     using the word Esquire for other legitimate uses, including,
     for example, as a personal email address.  

2.   If ICANN would expand the TLD space, to include such TLDs as
     magazine or even .esquire, it would not be necessary to
     choose between the use of Esquire as a personsal email
     domain and the name for the magazine publisher.