Bite at the apple? WIPO panel allows refiled case — A second
A WIPO panel decided to rehear a prior dispute based on fresh information, but the result was the same.
A World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) decided to hear a refiled case, but it didn’t change the overall outcome of the domain dispute.
In 2023, Lämpöpuuyhdistys Ry filed a UDRP against the domain name thermowood.com. Lämpöpuuyhdistys Ry is the trademark holder for Thermowood and licenses the brand for makers of a type of modified lumber product.
The domain is registered to a distributor of one of the Complainant’s licensees. In the 2023 case, panelist Warwick A. Rothnie noted that it appeared the registrant registered the domain due to the distributorship, so it wasn’t registered in bad faith.
Lämpöpuuyhdistys Ry refiled the case this year, noting that the domain registrant’s distributorship was canceled last year, which was following the original case was filed. It also submitted a less-redacted copy of the distributor agreement than it had submitted previously, which it argued showed that the distributor didn’t have the right to register the domain in the first place.
A three-person WIPO panel accepted the refiled case on the basis that these two pieces of fresh information couldn’t have been submitted previously.
I’m a bit surprised that it accepted the refiled case, but that might be since it’s evident that the fresh information wouldn’t change the result. Time and time again in licensee and distributor cases, we see ones where the agreement is canceled and the Complainant wants the domain. Still, even if the agreement is canceled, if the domain was initially registered in good faith, a subsequent contract termination won’t alter that fact.
As for the less-redacted distributorship agreement, it’s unclear why that couldn’t have been submitted in the first case. And the panel noted that it does not expressly forbid the distributor from registering the domain.
The panel denied the case on the grounds of registration and use in bad faith. As with the first case, it declined to find reverse domain name hijacking.
Lämpöpuuyhdistys Ry might have a legal case, but not one under UDRP.
