Two words open door for companies to refile UDRP cases.
In the legal world when a case is dismissed “without prejudice” it means the door has been left open for the plaintiff to file the case again at a future date. This is typically used when a case is dismissed, not when a case is found against the plaintiff.
The generally accepted rule for a UDRP filing is that a complainant can’t file a case for the same domain name twice unless something notable comes to light that could not have been known before the case was filed. After all, the complainant has all the time in the world to come up with his initial complaint whereas the respondent has only a couple weeks.
So it is disconcerting to read the decision in a recent case brought by Umpqua Investments, Inc. for the domain name strandatkinson.com. Umpqua failed to convince panelist James A. Carmody that it had any common law rights in “Strand Atkinson”. (A little research shows that Umpqua does business as Strand, Atkinson, Williams & York, Inc., and owned StrandAtkinson.com until it let it expire last year.)
But in rendering his decision, Carmody wrote that the case should be “Denied without prejudice”. This could create an interesting question for another panelist who gets a refiling of this case. Should he go along with UDRP precedent, or consider that Carmody used the term “without prejudice” in his decision?
As it turns out, this isn’t the first time Carmody has used the term “Dismissed without Prejudice” in a case. In a case filed last year by Church of Compassionate Service, Carmody found that the domain name wasn’t registered in bad faith, but he still used the “without prejudice” clause, which could be construed to be an offer that the case can be refiled.
There are circumstances where a UDRP case will be dismissed without prejudice. That is when there’s an existing court case for the domain name. Perhaps Carmody was using a template from just such a prior case when he wrote his decisions.
jontay says
Why do Americans who invented the internet and control it submit themselves to foreign courts?
That is the real question.
The Original Domainer says
There is nothing to prevent someone from filing 100 UDRP complaints for one domain name. It doesn’t matter what the panelist says.
Popeye says
How can UDRP “force” you to turn over the domain? I mean, how can they physically make you hand it over? If you set the registration as private, can they make the registrar take it from you?
John Berryhill says
“How can UDRP “force” you to turn over the domain?”
UDRP orders are binding on the registrar. When transfer is ordered, the registrar will perform the transfer, subject to the complainant agreeing to the terms of registration.