> You can't lose a domain based off of a threatening email.
Indeed, but if you take no action at all, the opposing counsel does take action, and you don't contest the action, then the default outcome could be a forced transfer of the domain.
So you agree that he doesn't need a lawyer at this junction. But if a lawsuit is filled, he will need to respond and request that the case be dismissed. Using a lawyer for that step isn't a bad idea.
They are going to have a hard time finding a case that set a precedent that you can take over another company's website because you registered a similar company 5 years later. Lookup nissan.com
This is not legal advice, but I don't recommend waiting until a suit is filed. Hiring counsel early and figuring out how to respond to the initial notice can be important: it might keep the courts out of the dispute altogether (especially if the other side is on very weak grounds) and might increase the settlement amount (if any) should OP choose to settle and transfer the domain.
There's more to this issue than just the naked law and legal procedure. Context matters, and experienced lawyers help you navigate situations. They're called "counsel" for a reason. :-)
But at what cost? 200/hour to navigate a situation that is easily winnable? Also if the other party knows that he has a lawyer they can use that to run up legal fees, making a settlement seem like the cheaper option.
You are assuming "easily winnable" without knowledge of all the facts and the law. The whole reason to hire an attorney is to get an informed opinion about where you stand in the first place.
Indeed, but if you take no action at all, the opposing counsel does take action, and you don't contest the action, then the default outcome could be a forced transfer of the domain.