RDNH finding for Sarten.com at NAF.
The UDRP over the domain Sarten.com is a prime example why Rick Schwartz created Hall of Shame.
Last December we covered the UDRP decision for the domain, filed at the WIPO.
Stanley Pace, the domain’s owner, successfully deflected a Turkish company’s claims to Sarten.com.
Just a few months later, Sarten Ambalaj Sanayi ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi, filed a second UDRP for Sarten.com, using the National Arbitration Forum this time.
This was not a case of presenting new evidence, but a blatant attempt at tricking the UDRP process.
In a sneaky move, the Complainant alleged that Stanley Pace owned the domain since 2014, which is not the case.
Attempting to adjudicate the case twice over the same domain, was referred to as “double jeopardy” by the Respondent.
The NAF panelist was scathing in his findings:
No doubt disappointed with the decision reached by the earlier three-member Panel in WIPO Case No. D2015-1790, Complainant has instituted this UDRP proceeding with a different institution, e.g., Forum, to have “a second bite at the cherry”, no doubt with a view to obtaining a favorable result the second time around.
Complainant’s action is barred by res judicata, a legal principle that a final decision on the merits by a court or tribunal having jurisdiction, is conclusive between the parties to a suit as to all matters that were argued, or that could have been argued, in the earlier proceeding.
Simply, the issues, which Complainant asks this Panel to decide in this administrative proceeding, have already been considered and decided in WIPO UDRP Case No. D2015-1790. The Complainant is barred by the principle of res judicata from pursuing this proceeding and re-litigating issues already decided by the WIPO Panel.
The final decision, as delivered by the panelist, David L. Kreider, was that the domain Sarten.com should remain with the Respondent.
He also found a blatant case of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking in this UDRP filing, as the Complainant abused the system, for a “second bite at the cherry,” as he put it:
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.
For the full text of this UDRP decision for Sarten.com, click here.
