A lot of misinformation on this thread. I don’t want to address all of it, but can clear up a couple of things:

On the TM challenge: this was done on June 16, as part of our defense. Not sometime later, after the UDRP decision was made. The challenge was a part of our defense, simply because Chris was asserting his TM against us, and those trademarks are very likely invalid. We pointed that out, and made this challenge, as part of the process.

On the “lateness” of our response, what happened is this: we and Chris (through his lawyer) mutually agreed to extend the deadline for our response. Together, we sent in a letter to the panel to let them know…but there’s a special form for extensions that you have to use. We included all of the required info in our letter, plus a sentence or two more. The ICANN bureaucrats noticed this a few days later, noted it in the record, and we resubmitted the extension, a couple days after the deadline. It was very much a technicality, and something that’s quite common. It’s also very common for the panel to say “no big deal,” like they did here. Based on prior cases, it would have been more shocking if they did the opposite, and rejected our response because it was “late”. In any case, the rules say that the panel has the discretion to accept or not accept if late. So either choice would have been within the rules. Nothing nefarious about what they did.