Grabs KOC.com at Arbitration (On Second Attempt) — Turkish Firm

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.

Koç Holding A.S., a Turkish firm, 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 firm had not proven it had a trademark.

Fast forward to 2009. Koç Holding A.S. again files a complaint. To justify refiling the case, the firm claims to have “fresh information” that couldn’t have been known at the time it originally filed its case. And what, you may ask, is that fresh information? That Koç Holding A.S. later filed a trademark for Koc.com. It didn’t include it in its original case since it hadn’t filed it yet; it didn’t file until 2002. So the panelist basically accepted that someone filing a trademark following a case is decided is fresh 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 fresh 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 fresh Complaint as has an allegation of subsequent bad faith and a nominal registrant change and is likely to have an notable influence on the result of the case. Therefore, the Panel finds the re-filed Complaint ought to be heard.

Think regarding that. Someone files a UDRP against you and you win. They later refile, citing fresh information…that following they lost they filed for a trademark on the keyword in your domain.

My logical brain is having a tough time computing this one.