"The Panel is of the opinion that the present UDRP proceeding is not the proper forum . . . These issues belong to a legal dispute which is outside the scope of paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP, and should more properly be decided before a court of the competent jurisdiction according to paragraph 15(e) of the Rules. . . .Clearly differing from any wide-scope action brought before a court of competent jurisdiction, proceedings under the Policy are a simplified and expedited means to obtain an administrative decision after – typically – just one round of writings and without hearings, which makes them apt to determine whether a clear case of cybersquatting exists or not. Paragraph 135 of the Final Report of the WIPO Internet Domain Name Process of April 30, 1999, states: “(i) First, the scope of the procedure is limited so that it is available only in respect of deliberate, bad faith, abusive, domain name registrations or “cybersquatting” and is not applicable to disputes between parties with competing rights acting in good faith.” The UDRP was implemented to address abusive cybersquatting, not contractual or legitimate business disputes.” NAF 1542794 - Google Inc. | Jason LaBossiere / Exo Level, LLC
Some think the Panel should have gone further, but I'll take that language above as a victory for domain name owners, and clarification and limitation of what heretofore has been broadening abuses of the UDRP by decision panels.