You missed some good parts:
“Complainant’s representative is a criminal organization that attempts unfairly to help companies take domain names from rightful registrants. As a disabled combat veteran, Respondent is simply trying to make the Internet a better place.”
“Respondent has abused Complainant’s affiliate program in bad faith by registering and profiting from the disputed domain names.”
“The names route Internet traffic to Complainant’s website in connection with Complainant’s affiliate program, with which Respondent is in full compliance.”
“Respondent is acting in good faith in sending Internet visitors to Complainant’s websites, and it is Complainant’s representative that is perpetuating an attempt to engage in reverse domain name hijacking.”
So it looks like this a is really a contractual dispute and Match.com says they are breaching the contract so it should be outside the scope of the UDRP.
Of course the whole thing is a waste of time as:
“Respondent owns only three of the disputed domain names now, as he let the registration of the others expire on June 9, 2012.”
Article source: http://www.thedomains.com/2012/08/06/a-one-person-udrp-panelist-comes-to-a-spilt-decision-on-106-domains-brought-by-match-com/comment-page-1/. Creative Commons (CC)
