SelectQuote Insurance Loses in Arbitration

     I won against SelectQuote's lawyer.  I just want to get the full decision up quickly, to provide encouragement to the underdogs out there standing up to companies that seek to stifle free speech with money and lawyers.  SelectQuote claims were entirely baseless, they just hope to outspend me and intimidate me to silence my true claims against them.  I will put my full response out on some document sharing sites, and send it along to Chilling Effects.
    This might help someone in a concrete way stand-up to lawyers.  Sure, I'd rather have had a lawyer stand-up to their lawyer, but I just couldn't afford one.  I'm sure many others find themselves in a similar situation, companies shouldn't just be able to buy a verdict.  Without further ado, here some highlights...

national arbitration forum

DECISION

SelectQuote Insurance Services v. Tom Dunham

Claim Number: FA1207001454896

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

...The content attached to the Disputed Domain Name is not a free speech commentary but rather a bad faith website carefully designed and intended to hurt the Complainant's business with defamatory comments.

B. Respondent

The Respondent's contentions can be summarized as follows:

Select Quote Review has a plain English meaning-an evaluation of the company named Select Quote...

The Complainant registered and began posting at the domain <selectquotereviews.com> after the Respondent started his blog at the Disputed Domain Name,so in the unlikely event that anyone confuses the two,it will most likely be as a result of the Complainant starting to use a very similar domain name.

...the Respondent has specifically run an article denying association. . .

The Disputed Domain Name was registered as a noncommercial criticism site...

The Disputed Domain Name is not typosquatting...

There has not been and will not be an offer to sell this name. There is no bad faith or squatting behaviour. .... Respondent's use is a nominative fair use. 
...
 Respondent is not a competitor.

The content of the web site is not defamatory and, in any event, it is not in the scope of this proceeding to determine such a question.

FINDINGS

...

Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in 2012. It has been used to post content critical of the Complainant.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

...

The Panel finds as a matter of fact from the evidence that the Disputed Domain Name is being used as a noncommercial criticism site.

Panel agrees with the Respondent that the addition of the term "review" implies a lack of association with the Complainant as a review is customarily written by someone unassociated with the subject being reviewed... The content is such that confusion as to origin ..., will be very quickly dispelled. There is no evidence of commercial gain or any motive for use of the site except as a forum to criticize the Complainant.
...

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

The Panel finds that the Respondent has not violated any of the factors listed in the Policy 4(b), nor has he engaged in any content that would constitute bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy 4 (a)(iii). The Panel agrees with the Respondent that his use is purely nominative.
...

DECISION

Having not established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.