I'm not lying.

From the URL

---

The Complainant is the owner of the European Union trademark registration Nos. 012771457 for OPNSENSE (figurative mark), filed on April 8, 2014 and registered on August 20, 2014, for goods in class 9, and 016287716 for OPNSENSE (word mark), filed on January 26, 2017 and registered on May 9, 2017, for goods in class 9.

The Complainant also owns the domain name <opnsense.org>, registered on September 4, 2014, at which it promotes and enables users to download its open-source OPNSENSE firewall.

The disputed domain name <opnsense.com> was registered on April 8, 2014, and is not pointed to an active website.

---

I want you to look closely at the date April 8, 2014, and then I want you to look for anything that occurred before that date, vs. all that occurred after.

▲

CursedSilicon 3 days ago | parent [-]

The Complainant further points out that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith because the Respondent has no business activity at the disputed domain name and the only purpose of the registration and use of the disputed domain name is to bring discredit on the OPNSENSE products of the Complainant, by using degrading words and publishing a video, showing an actor interpreting Hitler, with the following phrase above it: “From deep within the OPNSENSE development bunker”.

	▲	gonzopancho 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		You seem to not understand the difference between a fact "The disputed domain name <opnsense.com> was registered on April 8, 2014, and is not pointed to an active website." and an assertion or claim, "The Complainant further points out that the Respondent registered..." How does bad faith exist when the domain "opnsense.com" was registered a full 8 months prior to the January 2, 2015 OPNsense announcement? Point in fact, we published nothing. That website was not ours. We pointed the domain at it. you also are ignoring this bit: --- However, in contesting the Complainant’s supplemental submissions made by the Complainant to substantiate the asserted use of the trademark before the registration date of the disputed domain name, the Respondent introduces new elements which, in the Panel’s view, are relevant for the assessment of the Respondent’s position in this case and will thus be taken into consideration. Indeed, in its Supplemental Filing, the Respondent states that a document submitted by the Complainant in its Supplemental Filing (as Annex 17) does not demonstrate the Complainant’s use of the trademark OPNSENSE but provides, instead, evidence of use of a trademark PFSENSE in which the Respondent has rights. The Respondent also informs the Panel that it is the manager of Electric Sheep Fencing LLC, a United States company which owns the United States trademark registration No. 3571276 for the trademark PFSENSE, registered on February 10, 2009 claiming first use as of February 19, 2005, for services in International class 42 relating to technical support services, maintenance and development of computer software; and of the International trademark registration No. 1176766 for the trademark PFSENSE, registered on August 28, 2013, for goods in class 9, including computer security software. The Respondent also states that its company Electric Sheep Fencing LLC has rights in a book referenced on the document submitted by the Complainant entitled “pfsense.org The Definitive Guide to the Open Source Firewall and Router Distribution”. --- OPNsense were using the pfSense mark, and we were taking legal action to stop them.