In a new UDRP decision handed down by a 1 person panel at the National Arbitration Forum, where Complainant is Sarten Ambalaj Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi (“Complainant”), Turkey and Respondent is Stanley Pace (“Respondent”), Texas, USA, the panelist had a good explanation as to his decision for the Respondent. I had represented Stanley Pace in the first UDRP case decided against the same claimant.
Reverse Domain Name Hijacking
As noted in highlighted text above, the Complainant in this case incorrectly alleges that the Respondent has been the domain name owner for “sarten.com” since 14 January 2014. As is also noted in highlighted text above, the Panel in WIPO UDRP Case No. D2015-1790 specifically found that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on January 27, 1998, nearly sixteen (16) years earlier than was misrepresented by Complainant.
In sum, this Panel finds merit in Respondent’s allegation that Complainant “has intentionally deceived the Forum by changing a couple key points in their Complaint that they know to be false”, such as the key date the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name.
The Panelist notes with concern the complete absence from the Complaint of any reference to Complainant’s earlier failed challenge against this Respondent to claim this same domain name in WIPO UDRP Case No. D2015-1790.
Significantly, this is not an instance where a complainant openly and in good faith re-files a complaint to present new and previously undiscovered or unavailable evidence. See, e.g., Cash Converters Pty Ltd. v. Casshies Investments Pty Ltd. WIPO UDRP Case No. DAU2014-0035. The Complainant will not be heard to deny that it acted in these proceedings with full knowledge of the findings of the Panel in WIPO UDRP Case No. D2015-1790, a case which this same Complainant instituted. Rather, this is a case where Complainant has sought to surreptitiously and dishonestly bring the same case twice, in violation of the UDRP, in the hope of obtaining a favorable result through its wrongful conduct.
In short, Complainant in this action has (1) misrepresented a critical but inconvenient fact, e.g., the date the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name, and (2) has entirely omitted and failed to disclose the critical and inconvenient fact of its earlier failed UDRP challenge, with an intention and for the purpose of misleading this Panel. Complainant has attempted by this proceeding to have an earlier unfavorable ruling overturned through improper means, by flagrantly abusing the UDRP process.
The Panel has no hesitation in finding reverse domain name hijacking by Complainant.
Congratulations to Stanley and the Panelist who would not be duped by the Claimant.
The Neu Facebook