Claim Number: FA0912001298015
Complainant is WorldClearing US LLC (“Complainant”), represented by Xavier
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <paypay.com>, <buybrowser.com>, <boxstr.com>, <boxstrdrive.com>, <opendrive.com>, <pazpaz.com>, <paypaysucks.com>, <paypay.info> and <worldclearing.com>, registered with 007Names, Inc.; and <paypay.ws> registered with Godaddy.com, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Robert T. Pfeuffer, Senior District Judge, as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on December 8, 2009; the National Arbitration Forum received a hard copy of the Complaint on December 16, 2009.
On December 9, 2009 007Names, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <paypay.com>, <buybrowser.com>, <boxstr.com>, <boxstrdrive.com>, <opendrive.com>, <paypay.info>, <paypaysucks.com>, and <pazpaz.com> domain names are registered with 007Names, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Also, on December 18, 2009 007Names, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <worldclearing.com> is registered with 007Names, Inc. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 007Names, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the 007Names, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On December 9, 2009 Godaddy.com, LLC. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <paypay.ws> domain name is registered with Godaddy.com, LLC. and that the Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Godaddy.com, LLC. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Godaddy.com, LLC. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain-name disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On December 22, 2009, a Notification of Complaint and Commencement of Administrative Proceeding (the “Commencement Notification”), setting a deadline of January 11, 2010 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, was transmitted to Respondent via e-mail, post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts, and to firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org, and email@example.com by e-mail.
A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on January 11, 2010.
An Additional Submission was received from Complainant on January 15, 2010 and determined to be timely and complete pursuant to Supplemental Rule 7.
An Additional Submission was received from Respondent on January 21, 2010 and determined by the Forum to be deficient because it was not received prior to the deadline for submissions pursuant to Supplemental Rule 7.
On January 25, 2010, pursuant to Complainant’s request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Robert T. Pfeuffer, Senior District Judge, as Panelist.
Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
In lieu of reciting the contentions made by Complainant and Respondent, the Panel would point out that a preliminary issue of res judicata must be addressed.
Complainant previously submitted a
complaint regarding the <paypay.com>, <boxstr.com>, <boxstrdrive.com>, <opendrive.com>, and <buybrowser.com> domain names.
The complaint was denied by the panel without prejudice in order to
bring the case to another forum on the grounds that there was a business
dispute outside the scope of the UDRP. See PayPay
Inc. v Worldclearing
Typically, complaints may not be resubmitted for relief subsequent to their denial due to res judicata principles unless the complainant meets its high burden of demonstrating the need for such additional review. See, e.g., Creo Prods. Inc. v. Website in Dev., D2000-1490 (WIPO Jan. 19, 2001) (finding that the burden of establishing that a second complaint should be entertained is “high”). Several criteria have been set forth for determining whether a complaint may be refiled. See Grove Broad. Co. Ltd. v. Telesystems Commc’ns Ltd., D2000-0703 (WIPO Nov. 10, 2000) (noting, and subsequently applying to the UDRP, the four common-law grounds for the rehearing or reconsideration of a previously filed decision as (1) serious misconduct on the part of a judge, juror, witness or lawyer; (2) perjured evidence having been offered to the court; (3) the discovery of credible and material evidence which could not have been reasonably foreseen or known at trial; or (4) a breach of natural justice).
Complainant presents no new evidence in the instant proceedings and only adds the <paypay.info>, <paypay.ws>, <paypaysucks.com>, <pazpaz.com>, and <worldclearing.com> domain names to the case. Respondent argues that due to the panel’s previous denial, the principles of res judicata should be enforced.
After careful consideration of all documents filed, including supplemental filings by both Complainant and Respondent, the Panel is persuaded to deny Complainants refiling under the principles of res judicata. See Koninklijke Philips Elecs. N.V. v. Relson Ltd., DWS2002-0001 (WIPO June 14, 2002) (determining that it “should follow the consensus view that has emerged” with regard to refiled complaints and holding such refiling impermissible unless the subsequent proceeding would be appropriate under the Grove Broadcasting standards).
On the basis of the principles of res judicata, the Panel has determined to dismiss this complaint.
Having determined that the ruling of the prior Panel dismissing the complaint is controlling pursuant to the principles of res judicata, the Panel concludes that the complaint should be dismissed with prejudice.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
Robert T. Pfeuffer,
Senior District Judge, Panelist
Dated: February 8, 2010
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page
National Arbitration Forum