DECISION

 

Tiger Aesthetics Medical, LLC v. pan xin yon

Claim Number: FA2506002162643

 

PARTIES

Complainant is Tiger Aesthetics Medical, LLC ("Complainant"), represented by David M. Perry of Blank Rome LLP, Pennsylvania, USA. Respondent is pan xin yon ("Respondent"), Canada.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <tigeraesthetics.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), registered with Sav.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.

 

Francine Siew Ling Tan and David E. Sorkin as Panelists and Douglas M. Isenberg as Chair.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on June 25, 2025; Forum received payment on June 25, 2025.

 

On June 30, 2025, Sav.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <tigeraesthetics.com> domain name is registered with Sav.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Sav.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Sav.com, LLC registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN's Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Policy").

 

On July 1, 2025, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of July 21, 2025, by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@tigeraesthetics.com. Also on July 1, 2025, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent's registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.

 

A timely Response was received and determined to be complete on July 2, 2025.

 

On July 7, 2025, pursuant to the Parties' requests to have the dispute decided by a three-member Panel, Forum appointed Francine Siew Ling Tan and David E. Sorkin as Panelists and Douglas M. Isenberg as Chair.

 

Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: PREVIOUS UDRP PROCEEDING

As Complainant acknowledges, it lost a previous proceeding against Respondent regarding the Disputed Domain Name, Tiger Aesthetics Medical, LLC v. pan xin yong, FA 2140282 (Forum, February 26, 2025). In that case, the panel found that "Complainant has not met its burden of providing sufficient evidence to establish the date on which it may have acquired common law rights in the TIGER AESTHETICS mark"; "Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that it acquired common law rights in the mark TIGER AESTHETICS before the disputed domain name was registered on October 30, 2024"; "Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving that Respondent's intent in registering the disputed domain name was to unfairly capitalize on Complainant's nascent trademark rights"; and "Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving bad faith registration of the disputed domain name." In denying relief, the panel wrote that its dismissal was "without prejudice to any national court proceedings that the parties may wish to envisage" and that "the instant case could be refiled if Complainant can present new material evidence that was reasonably unavailable to it when the instant case was filed, in particular concerning Respondent's intent in registering the disputed domain name."

 

In its Complaint in this proceeding, Complainant says that the panel in the previous proceeding "stated that the dismissal was without prejudice and that the instant case could be refiled pursuant to 4.18 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (the 'WIPO Overview')." Complainant then writes:

 

Section 4.18 of the WIPO Overview states that Panels accept refiled complaints in five circumstances, namely: (i) when the complainant establishes that legally relevant developments have occurred since the original UDRP decision, (ii) a breach of natural justice or of due process has objectively occurred, (iii) where serious misconduct in the original case (such as perjured evidence) that influenced the outcome is subsequently identified, (iv) where new material evidence that was reasonably unavailable to the complainant during the original case is presented, or (v) where the case has previously been decided (including termination orders) expressly on a "without prejudice" basis." Complainant respectfully submits that it is permitted to refile the Complaint pursuant to (i), (iv) and (v) in 4.18 of the WIPO Overview, as there have been legally relevant developments that have occurred since the original decision, there is new material evidence that was reasonably unavailable to Complainant during the original case, and the previous case was decided expressly on a "without prejudice" basis.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant states that it "is a leader in the field of aesthetic medicine and is revolutionizing the field of aesthetic medicine by delivering cutting-edge, innovative products across reconstruction, cosmetic, and regenerative areas, empowering practitioners to achieve life-changing results for their patients."

 

Complainant contends that it "Is the Owner of the TIGER AESTHETICS® Trademark"¹ because, inter alia, it "has garnered significant common law rights in and to the TIGER AESTHETICS Mark through continuous and substantial use of the TIGER AESTHETICS Mark in the marketplace" since March 2024; the "TIGER AESTHETICS Mark has become distinctive as used on or in connection with a variety of goods and services through Complainant's extensive marketing, advertising, and promotion of such goods and services under such mark"; "Complainant's mark garnered significant public attention when Complainant acquired substantially all of the assets in Sientra, Inc. on April 24, 2024, which garnered significant media and press attention across the United States"; "Complainant engages in significant marketing, promotional, and advertising activities related to its TIGER AESTHETICS Mark, including on its website located at www.tiger-aesthetics.com"; and "Complainant has also spent a significant amount of money on advertising, marketing, promotion, and sales of the goods and products offered under the mark. Complainant also markets its products and services under the TIGER AESTHETICS Mark through marketing material distributed to the general public and consumers," copies of which Complainant included with the Complaint. Complainant also refers to social media uses of the TIGER AESTHETICS trademark, "large events and trade shows" featuring the TIGER AESTHETICS trademark; and news articles referencing the TIGER AESTHETICS trademark.

 

Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the TIGER AESTHETICS trademark because, inter alia, the Disputed Domain Name "is identical in appearance and identical in spelling to the TIGER AESTHETICS Mark and Complainant's domain name and, therefore, Respondent's registration constitutes typosquatting."

 

Complainant contends that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name because, inter alia, "Respondent has never been authorized by Complainant to use the TIGER AESTHETICS Mark or any mark confusingly similar thereto as a mark or as part of a domain name," which "gives rise to a presumption that Respondent cannot establish that it has rights or any legitimate interest in the domain name"; and "none of the circumstances described in the Policy to overcome this presumption are present here."

 

Complainant contends that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith because, inter alia, "the identical nature of Respondent's domain name and the TIGER AESTHETICS Mark is strong evidence in support of the fact that Respondent registered the domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant's prior rights in the TIGER AESTHETICS Mark"; "after the decision was issued in the prior complaint filed by Complainant against Respondent for the tigeraesthetics.com domain name, the Respondent updated the website to prominently feature a logo that is similar to Complainant's well established logo and listed the domain for sale for $500,000 – after having the domain name offered for sale for $18,888 prior to the decision"; and Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name only "a few months" after Complainant's "major corporate deal that garnered significant media and press attention."

 

In a supplemental filing, Complainant argues that, inter alia, "Respondent's claim that they are not acting in bad faith is completely disingenuous and, frankly, incredible"; that Respondent's arguments about other domain name sales are inapplicable; and that "Respondent did not refrain from the infringing behavior until after receiving the second UDRP complaint."

 

B. Respondent

Respondent contends that, inter alia, "Complainant has not established trademark rights sufficient to invoke the Policy"; "[a]fter prevailing in the first UDRP proceeding, I believed the matter was fully resolved"; "I continued to offer the domain for sale on standard marketplaces using a common make-offer format"; "I briefly published a landing page with AI-generated content and branding, with no intent to infringe or imitate Complainant"; "I am a long-time domain investor with approximately 1,000 domains listed at dignitydomains.com, including brandable, one-word, geo, and two-word domains"; "[t]he domain tigeraesthetics.com was registered as part of this inventory, not with any particular business or trademark in mind"; "I did not use the domain to mislead, divert, or impersonate Complainant"; "I have never contacted them to sell the domain, nor referenced their brand"; and "[t]he domain was listed like many others, generically and without targeting."

 

FINDINGS

The Disputed Domain Name was registered on October 30, 2024, and is being used in connection with a website offering it for sale.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."

 

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:

 

(1)       the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(2)       Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and

(3)       the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

 

However, as described above, the Complaint in this case is a refiled complaint; in fact, it was filed less than five months after the decision in favor of Respondent in Tiger Aesthetics Medical, LLC v. pan xin yong, FA 2140282.

 

Complainant has mischaracterized the previous panel's references to refiling a complaint for the Disputed Domain Name. While the previous panel wrote that "as stated in 4.18 of the cited Overview, the instant case could be refiled if Complainant can present new material evidence that was reasonably unavailable to it when the instant case was filed, in particular concerning Respondent's intent in registering the disputed domain name," Complainant says that "the dismissal was without prejudice and that the instant case could be refiled pursuant to 4.18 of the WIPO Overview." Section 4.18 lists five "highly limited circumstances" under which panels have accepted refiled complaints, but the previous panel addressed only one of them: "where new material evidence that was reasonably unavailable to the complainant during the original case is presented."

 

Although, because case filings in proceedings under the Policy are not publicly available, the Panel here has not reviewed the complaint filed in the previous proceeding, Complainant has not stated that it has provided any "new material evidence that was reasonably unavailable to the complainant during the original case." While Complainant has offered significant detail about its use of the words "TIGER AESTHETICS" in an effort to establish its common law trademark rights, it appears as if all such details would have been available to Complainant when it filed the original complaint.

 

Even if the previous panel's decision had not expressed limitations on Complainant's ability to refile, the Panel here still sees no reason why a refiled complaint would be appropriate. Yes, Respondent appears to have significantly increased the advertised price for the Disputed Domain Name following the decision in the first proceeding, but this is not a "legally relevant development" because, if it is relevant at all, it would be relevant only to use – not registration – of the Disputed Domain Name, and the previous decision clearly denied relief because, inter alia, "Complainant has failed to satisfy its burden of proving bad faith registration of the disputed domain name."

Accordingly, the Panel finds that this is not an exceptional case in which refiling would be appropriate. As a result, the Panel finds it unnecessary to evaluate the substantive elements of the Complaint and declines to do so.  Nevertheless, the Panel reiterates the previous panel's note that its decision here is "without prejudice to any national court proceedings that the parties may wish to envisage."

 

REVERSE DOMAIN NAME HIJACKING

Respondent writes: "I respectfully ask the Panel to consider a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. This is the second complaint from the same Complainant, re-arguing a case they already lost. I believe this filing was made to pressure me into giving up a domain I lawfully own, despite no new evidence of bad faith."

 

The Rules define Reverse Domain Name Hijacking ("RDNH") as "using the Policy in bad faith to attempt to deprive a registered domain-name holder of a domain name." Further, the Rules state that, "[i]f after considering the submissions the Panel finds that the complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or was brought primarily to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding."

 

As set forth in section 4.16 of WIPO Overview 3.0:

 

Reasons articulated by panels for finding RDNH include: (i) facts which demonstrate that the complainant knew it could not succeed as to any of the required three elements – such as the complainant's lack of relevant trademark rights, clear knowledge of respondent rights or legitimate interests, or clear knowledge of a lack of respondent bad faith… such as registration of the disputed domain name well before the complainant acquired trademark rights, (ii) facts which demonstrate that the complainant clearly ought to have known it could not succeed under any fair interpretation of facts reasonably available prior to the filing of the complaint, including relevant facts on the website at the disputed domain name or readily available public sources such as the WhoIs database, (iii) unreasonably ignoring established Policy precedent notably as captured in this WIPO Overview – except in limited circumstances which prima facie justify advancing an alternative legal argument, (iv) the provision of false evidence, or otherwise attempting to mislead the panel, (v) the provision of intentionally incomplete material evidence – often clarified by the respondent, (vi) the complainant's failure to disclose that a case is a UDRP refiling, (vii) filing the complaint after an unsuccessful attempt to acquire the disputed domain name from the respondent without a plausible legal basis, (viii) basing a complaint on only the barest of allegations without any supporting evidence.

 

Here, given the panel's express note in the first proceeding regarding the Disputed Domain Name that "the instant case could be refiled" under limited circumstances, the Panel finds that, although such circumstances are inapplicable here, Complainant did not act "in bad faith to attempt to deprive" Respondent of the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel declines to declare that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding.

 

DECISION

For the reasons set forth above, the Panel concludes that relief shall be DENIED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <tigeraesthetics.com> domain name REMAIN WITH Respondent.

 

 

 

Douglas M. Isenberg, Chair

Francine Siew Ling Tan and David E. Sorkin, Panelists

Dated: July 18, 2025

 

CONCURRING OPINION

I concur in the Panel's decision to deny relief, but would find that the refiled complaint was brought in bad faith, in an instance of reverse domain name hijacking.

 

Complainant failed to prove bad faith registration in the prior proceeding, and has presented no new evidence concerning that issue that was reasonably unavailable when the prior proceeding was brought. The refiled complaint represents a brazen attempt by Complainant and its counsel to relitigate that issue, warranting a finding of reverse domain name hijacking. See, e.g., Scoop Soldiers Services Co., LLC v. Top Paw Distributing LLC, FA 2109450 (Forum Sept. 12, 2024) (finding RDNH in similar circumstances); see also Unbiased Ltd trading as Unbiased.co.uk v. Development Manager, D2021-0113 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2021) (Hon. Neil Anthony Brown QC concurring) (noting that a finding of RDNH is the only sanction available for a clearly unjustified refiling).

 

David E. Sorkin, Panelist