Originally Posted by
feijai
This makes no sense at all. According to ICANN rules, this isn't a domain name ownership issue: it's a trademark issue. If David Hon owns the trademark "dahon", then he can perfectly legally rip "dahon.com" away from Tern. If Tern owns the trademark "dahon", then "dahonbikes" is too similar a trademark and David Hon can't use it. Either way, either David has the rights to *both* dahon.com and dahonbikes.com, or he has the rights to *neither* of them. It's can't be that Tern controls one and David controls the other.
Documents submitted to the court suggest that in March 2009 the factions agreed to "... continue to appear to the public as member of the same 'Dahon Group' to max
PR image ...". That's for example why David Dahon is mentioned in the Dahon Taiwan's site
http://www.dahon.com/our-company . Hopefully the court will resolve it though the defense claims that it has no jurisdiction.
I would think that the confusion around the Dahon brand works for Tern's benefit.