Come to light at trial? No, methinks it must come to light during pre-trial "discovery", otherwise it will be barred from admission into evidence at trial .
I've been waiting for the PPC partnership to get buggered for allowing trademark typosquatters into the direct navigation mix. For too long certain entities have defended their actions on the claim that "there's simply too many domains for them to analyze each for trademark violations". In many cases that rationale was humbug, albeit there is a large swath of domains potentially subject to a claim of trademark infringement that would/might not stand up in court. For example, someone selling family crests might do business under Crest.com or Crests.com and survive a trademark challenge, but the domain registratnt better not advertise toothpaste. Ditto, if Crest.com was parked.
Quite some time ago I suggested in a domain forum that the first typo-squatting/PPC broadside would likely come from a much typo-abused corporate entity such as Diney, I mean Disny, no no I mean Sisney, no Dismey . . . I suggested that it might be more efficient for a company, such as Disney, to go after the PPC providers - who enabled the monetization of trademark infringements - instead of filing multiple WIPO or NAF complaints. I also suggested that another route that might bring about a housecleaning could be a complaint filed with an agency such as the FTC. It looks like I was wrong, but no matter, Elliot is as likely as Disney to get the job done. Elliot is the FTC personified.
The nice thing about typo-squatting housecleaning efforts is that it should improve both the performance and perception, and therefore the value-in-use, of the remaining parked domain portfolios - the one's that truly are generic, i.e., not trademark typos.
Stay tuned. I suspect the next round of significant/sustained abuse will be corporate entities employing the WIPO/NAF process to engage in reverse domain hijacking efforts of domains that truly are generic and put to such use.