Panelist’s decision in three character domain dispute does not compute.
Sometimes I read something and just scratch my head. Such is the case with a UDRP for KOC.com.
KoÃ§ Holding A.S., a Turkish company, filed a complaint to get this domain name earlier this decade — but was denied in a decision in March of 2001. The panelist on the case determined that the company had not proven it had a trademark.
Fast forward to 2009. KoÃ§ Holding A.S. again files a complaint. To justify refiling the case, the company claims to have “new information” that couldn’t have been known at the time it originally filed its case. And what, you may ask, is that new information? That KoÃ§ Holding A.S. later filed a trademark for Koc.com. It didn’t include it in its original case because it hadn’t filed it yet; it didn’t file until 2002. So the panelist basically accepted that someone filing a trademark after a case is decided is new information that could not have been known at the time of the original case, and therefore rehearing the case is admissible:
The Policy and Rules do not speak specifically to the issue of re-filing of a complaint. Here, the previous complaint was denied as the Complainant failed to establish the first element, and new evidence, i.e., the Complainant’s trademark registration, that was evidently not reasonably available at the time of the previous complaint has been submitted in the new Complaint as has an allegation of subsequent bad faith and a nominal registrant change and is likely to have an important influence on the result of the case. Therefore, the Panel finds the re-filed Complaint should be heard.
Think about that. Someone files a UDRP against you and you win. They later refile, citing new information…that after they lost they filed for a trademark on the keyword in your domain.
My logical brain is having a tough time computing this one.