WIPO Domain Name Dispute Case D2021-0113: Unbiased Ltd vs. Development Manager

In the case of D2021-0113, adjudicated by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, the complainant was Unbiased Ltd, trading as Unbiased.co.uk, a United Kingdom-based company. The respondent in this case was Development Manager, based in the United States. This dispute centered around the domain name “unbiased.com.”

The procedural history of the case began with the filing of the complaint by Unbiased Ltd on January 14, 2021. Following the necessary verifications and procedural checks by the WIPO Center, the case officially commenced on January 19, 2021, with a response deadline set for February 12, 2021. The response from Development Manager was duly filed within this timeframe.

A critical aspect of this case was its status as a refiled complaint. Previously, in 2015, Unbiased Ltd had filed a similar complaint against the same respondent regarding the same domain name, which was adjudicated by the National Arbitration Forum (FORUM) and resulted in a decision against Unbiased Ltd. The 2021 case, therefore, raised questions about the admissibility of a refiled complaint under the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

The panel, consisting of Willem J. H. Leppink, David Stone, and The Hon Neil Brown Q.C., focused on whether the 2021 complaint should be considered on its merits given its refiled nature. The UDRP, along with the WIPO Overview 3.0, provides guidance on the acceptance of refiled complaints. These documents highlight that refiled complaints can only be accepted under specific circumstances, such as new legal developments, a breach of natural justice, identification of misconduct in the original case, new material evidence, or previous decisions made on a “without prejudice” basis.

In this instance, the panel found that Unbiased Ltd did not adequately justify the refiling of the complaint. The complaint was essentially similar to the 2015 case and did not present any new circumstances that would warrant a reexamination. Consequently, the panel decided not to accept the refiled complaint and did not proceed to discuss its merits.

A significant part of the decision involved the issue of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH). Panelist The Hon Neil Brown Q.C. expressed a separate opinion concurring with the decision to dismiss the complaint but dissenting on not ruling on the RDNH issue. He argued that the complainant, Unbiased Ltd, should have been aware that their case lacked new grounds or justifications and, by proceeding without such grounds, they appeared to be engaging in an attempt to harass the respondent, Development Manager. This panelist supported a finding of RDNH to discourage such practices in future domain name disputes.

The decision date for this case was March 23, 2021, and it concluded with the complaint being denied, marking an important instance in the realm of domain name disputes where the refiled nature of the case and the implications of RDNH were critically examined.

In the case of D2021-0113, adjudicated by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center, the complainant was Unbiased Ltd, trading as Unbiased.co.uk, a United Kingdom-based company. The respondent in this case was Development Manager, based in the United States. This dispute centered around the domain name “unbiased.com.” The procedural history of the case began with the…