Ok fair enough. The domain itself has been siezed by Chaturbate so what's written on there is their own opinion. But in the linked PDF, if you navigate around the legalise, it says they found that the domain name is too similar to chaturbate. That is their sole finding. They then repeat what Chaturbate claims about copyright infringement, but they don't make a finding on that. They say that because Recurbate didn't respond, they will take Chaturbate's claim as proven. About the copyright, they only say copyright infringement can't be used as a counter-argument for legitimate use of a domain name. AFAIK, this particular body can't sieze a domain due to copyright infringement alone, only the kinds of things they list in this finding (counterfeiting, fraud, hacking, etc). In other words, if the same website had a domain name that didn't sound like chaturbate, they wouldn't have been able to sieze it.

Ok fair enough. The domain itself has been siezed by Chaturbate so what's written on there is their own opinion. But in the linked PDF, if you navigate around the legalise, it says they found that the domain name is too similar to chaturbate. That is their sole finding. They then repeat what Chaturbate claims about copyright infringement, but they don't make a finding on that. They say that because Recurbate didn't respond, they will take Chaturbate's claim as proven. About the copyright, they only say copyright infringement can't be used as a counter-argument for legitimate use of a domain name. In other words, if the same website had a domain name that didn't sound like chaturbate, they wouldn't have been able to sieze it.