Before considering the merits of the Complaint, the Panel must first consider whether the Complaint is acceptable for a decision, given that it is a refiled Complaint. For the reasons explained below, the Panel is not satisfied that this procedural requirement is met. In particular the Panel finds that the refiled Complaint is not admissible under the UDRP.
By UDRP decision in CAC Case No. 100421 dated 15 May 2012 a Panel has already rejected a Complaint filed by the same Complainant as in the present case, against the same Respondent as in the present case and involving the same domain name as in the present case. In that case, the Panel found that the domain name <COMPARETHEMARKET.XXX> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s domain name and trademark. Furthermore, the Panel held that the Respondent did not offer any countervailing arguments to show its legitimate interest, despite the Complainant’s claim to the contrary. However, the Panel rejected the Complaint as the Complainant had failed to prove bad faith registration or use of the disputed domain name. For this finding, the Panel considered the Complainant’s registered rights in the UK, “where Respondent appears resident”.
On 22 May 2012, one week after the first decision in Case No. 100421, the Complainant filed the Complaint in the present case. The Panel considers this Complaint as a refiled case as it involves the same domain name and the same Respondent as in the earlier Complaint that had been denied in Case No. 100421.
The Policy itself is silent on the question of refiled Complaints. There is no express prohibition against refiling Complaints, and the Policy does not state any explicit standards for accepting or rejecting refiled Complaints for consideration by a new Panel. It is conceivable that a well-funded Complainant could simply refile successive Complaints until it found a Panel willing to order the transfer of the disputed domain name. This would not be a fair burden to impose on Respondents, it would not be an efficient use of the resources of the dispute resolution service provider, and it would not promote consistency and predictability in UDRP decisions (see WIPO Case No. D2011-0057 – Sensis Pty Ltd., Telstra Corporation Limited v. Yellow Page Marketing B.V.).
Paragraph 5(a) of the Rules allows the Panel to consider “any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” UDRP-Panels have dismissed some refiled Complaints after referring to widely accepted legal principles such as res judicata (preclusion of identical claims), judicial efficiency, and the fundamental fairness of not imposing on Respondents the burden of replying to repetitious Complaints, sometimes expressed as a principle of “natural law”, “fair process”, or “due process”. Such principles, as well as common exceptions to the doctrine of res judicata, are found in both common law and civil law jurisdictions, and with application to civil, criminal, administrative, and arbitral proceedings (see examples quoted by WIPO Case No. D2011-0057 – Sensis Pty Ltd., Telstra Corporation Limited v. Yellow Page Marketing B.V.).
It is therefore the consensus view of UDRP Panels that a refiled case may be accepted only in limited circumstances. These circumstances include when the Complainant establishes in the Complaint that relevant new actions have occurred since the original decision, or that a breach of natural justice or of due process has occurred, or that there was other serious misconduct in the original case (such as perjured evidence). A refiled Complaint would usually also be accepted if it includes newly presented evidence that was reasonably unavailable to the Complainant during the original case. Finally, in certain highly limited circumstances (such as where a Panel found the evidence in a case to be finely balanced, and that it was possible that the future behavior of the Respondent might confirm bad faith registration and use after all), a Panel in a previous case may have found it appropriate to record in its decision that, if certain conditions were met, a future refiled Complaint may be accepted. Where this has occurred, the extent to which any such previously-stipulated Panel conditions may have been met in any refiled Complaint may also be a relevant consideration in determining whether such refiled Complaint should be accepted (see WIPO Case No. D2011-0057 – Sensis Pty Ltd., Telstra Corporation Limited v. Yellow Page Marketing B.V.; WIPO Case No. D2009-0357 – GetMore A/S v. Sooyong Kim; WIPO Case No. D2009-0540Cheung Kong (Holdings) Limited and Chueng Kong Property Development Limited v. Netego DotCom).
In its refiled Complaint, the Complainant presented its observations regarding the first decision in Case No. 100421 concluding that the result in Administrative Proceeding No. 100421 was unjust. Furthermore, the Complainant seeks to justify the refiling of a UDRP Complaint against the same Respondent concerning the same domain name with only one argument: according to the Complainant’s allegations, it was not aware of the Respondent’s true identity, being a UK-resident when filing the first Complaint. The background was that at that time, the Respondent used a privacy service. Therefore, in its first Complaint the Complainant did not rely on this fact to argue that its web-portal under <COMPARETHEMARKET.COM> and trademarks <COMPARE THE MARKET> were renowned in UK so that the Respondent must have been aware of these rights.
It has to be noted that the Panel in UDRP-Case No. 100421 explicitly considered the fact that the Respondent appeared to be resident in the UK.
Therefore, the Panel finds that the above limited conditions for accepting a refiled case are not met in the present case. The Complainant has established neither that relevant new actions have occurred since the original decision, nor that a breach of natural justice or of due process has occurred, nor that there was other serious misconduct in the original case (such as perjured evidence), nor that the Complaint in the present case includes newly presented evidence that was reasonably unavailable to the Complainant during the original case. Finally, the Panel in the previous case did not find it appropriate to record in its decision that, if certain conditions were met, a future refiled Complaint may be accepted.
For the foregoing reasons, the Panel concludes that the Complainant has not met its burden of demonstrating that the refiled Complaint falls within the limited grounds on which refiled Complaints should be entertained.
|