UDRP on spase.com: act II (two decisions in three months)
On July 3, 2020, Mr. G., claiming to be the owner of an unregistered trademark called “SPASE” since 2019, initiated a UDRP procedure before the Arbitration and Mediation Center of the World Intellectual Property Organization (wipo.int) against the holder of the domain name <spase.com>, created in 2005 and continuously used by Mrs. Jello, LLC. The UDRP decision indicates that the latter used <spase.com> for a parking page. Unsurprisingly, the complaint was dismissed on September 15, 2020 (WIPO, D2020-1786, Sahil Gupta v. Michal Lichtman / Domain Admin, Mrs. Jello, LLC, September 15, 2020), The complaint had little chance of success (iptwins.com, 2020-10-29).
A UDRP decision does not necessarily end the conflict between the parties. Several possibilities are open: settlement agreement, mediation, judicial proceedings, and a second UDRP procedure is also possible when certain conditions are met (see 4.18 Under what circumstances would a refiled case be accepted?, wipo.int).
On November 24, 2020, a few weeks after the first UDRP decision, Mr. G. started a new UDRP procedure, this time before the National Arbitration Forum (adrforum.com). The admissibility of a new complaint requires the demonstration of new facts (WIPO, D2020-1786, Sahil Gupta v. Michal Lichtman / Domain Admin, Mrs. Jello, LLC, September 15, 2020). Unfortunately, the issue of admissibility was not addressed in decision FA2011001921922. However, the complaint did contain new facts. Indeed, Mr. G. argued that Mrs. Jello, LLC, used the domain name for cybercriminal purposes (“malware”). The ruling does not state whether these allegations were verified. The panelist merely recalled that “both registration and use in bad faith are required and all criterion require that the Complainant in the case should be targeted by the registration of the Domain Name” (NAF, FA2011001921922, Sahil Gupta v. Michal Lichtman / Domain Admin, Mrs. Jello, LLC, December 23, 2020). In the present case, the complainant did not establish that the domain name had been registered in bad faith.