After reading so much on "cybersquatting" including more than once the entire Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and ICANN's Uniform Name and Dispute Resolution Policy, I'm still not clear on a couple of things.
It seems in both the ACPA and ICANN, the great emphasis is placed on trademark and service mark infringement. However, the door seems open a bit in language such as ICANN "...(b) to your knowledge, the registration of the domain name will not infringe upon or otherwise violate the rights of any third party.
So "any third party" could be a non-trademark/service mark holder. In fact, this could cover every human being on the planet, no? "Third party" is never defined anywhere I can find.
And what are "the rights" exactly? I don't see "the rights" defined anywhere.
Example: What if I have buybeachballs.com and I'm selling beachballs, and someone else registers ibuybeachballs and starts selling beach balls.
Do I have a case against ibuybeachballs.com ?
Thanks!

If you own the trademark to buybeachballs and registered the trademark before the other party registered the ibuybeachballs domain name, there you would have a case.
If no TM is involved you'll have to consult a few lawyers.

The World Intellectual Property Organization would be the website to visit. http://www.wipo.int/ Portions of it look dead atm but in the domain disputes i've seen WIPO is usually making the judgment calls on what fly's.

buybeachballs.com is not likely capable of trademark registraiton. As you mention, trademark rights are mandatory. Generic or descriptive words typically can't be trademarked if the words used describe the product being sold.

woods01 writes: The World Intellectual Property Organization would be the website to visit. http://www.wipo.int/ Portions of it look dead atm but in the domain disputes i've seen WIPO is usually making the judgment calls on what fly's.
can you elaborate on the meaning of "on what flys."
TC Attorney: if you reread the question, i think you'll see the situations do not concern domains violating trademark. trademark is off the table. i understand how things are trademark infringements. it is when domains are NOT covered by trademark that it is not clear to me in the language of either the ACPA, ICANN or WIPO.
the question is whether someone is infringing on the rights of a non-trademark covered domain (in this case beachballs.com) with a second domain name (ibuybeachballs.com or maybe ibeachballs.com) when this second domain offers commercial services that are very similar to the originally registered and active website/blog's domain (beachballs.com)
i understand this is a legal-oriented question. i'm posting here to see if anyone has had any experiences with a similar situation. if you are an internet domain attorney, that experience will be appreciated too.
thank you!

it is when domains are NOT covered by trademark that it is not clear to me in the language of either the ACPA, ICANN or WIPO.
If there are no trademark rights, then the ACPA and UDRP (ICANN, WIPO, NAF) do not apply.

greencharisma, theres a UDRP "Uniform Domain-Name Dispute-Resolution Policy" policy that ICANN has that sorta fits into domain related disputes. However UDRPs won't really do much as far as trademarks are concerned from what i've seen.
WIPO would make the decision in regards to who has the rights to a domain name based on a trademark dispute.
Conclusion: you own a domain that a big media conglomerate wants, you lose. If your a trademark holder without alot of money and you feel domains are being registered that infringe on your tm's, the WIPO may be able to help you:)
Perhaps this doesn't address the OPS question however in the legal system, there are no what-ifs, it's all case by case.

Provided you can prove a prior use (non-registered) trademark and prove their domain was registered in bad faith, then I think you would win a WIPO case.

I think I see what you're really asking, greencharisma. Because of the wording, you seem concerned that some other party might have some kind of "right" towards your domain registration other than trademarks.
Now, TC Attorney (and fancy seeing you here :D) is right that UDRP and ACPA don't apply if one can't demonstrate trademark rights to the domain name-sake. That's not the only concern, though, depending on a variety of things.
In Canada, you might not be allowed to post on your domain name's website any legal updates on a pending criminal prosecution. That's if you use a Tucows reseller or Rebel.com.
In Europe, you can't put up a Nazi site. That's if you use Gandi.net or Joker.com.
As one other lawyer I know said, every country is likely to have some "quirky" law of its own. And registrars tailor their contracts and so forth to suit their laws in their own areas.
That term you've described is essentially an attempt to cover any and all possible scenarios. While no one can realistically state every legal issue in every jurisdiction on the planet in their contracts, registrars (like any other business) will try to shed as much potential liability as they can.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about that term. And whatever rights you have are: a) defined by your registrar's contract, b) what any applicable law in your country or state says, and c) what you're ready, able and willing to enforce on another, if ever.