This is the second proceeding in which Complainant has sought the transfer of the <abt.com> domain name. InAbt Electronics, Inc. v. Motherboards.com,FA 221239 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 20, 2004), the panel denied transfer of the <abt.com> domain name. Complainant alleges that the current registrant of the disputed domain name, listed in the WHOIS information as âGregory Ricks,â is a separate entity than the respondent in the previous proceeding, and thus this is a proceeding against a new Respondent. However, Respondent asserts that it is the past and present registrant of the <abt.com> domain name despite the change in the registration information. Complainant argues that in addition to a new respondent, the website that resolves from the disputed domain name is also substantially different from its presentation prior to the previous UDRP dispute.
The Panel has determined that the Respondent and the respondent in the original proceeding are not the same entity and thus, the Panel can proceed with this dispute. However, even if the Respondent and âMotherboards.comâ were one and the same, the Panel finds that res judicata does not apply due to the different facts involved including facts which did not exist at the time of the prior proceeding. See Grove Broad. Co. Ltd. v. Telesystems Commcâns Ltd., D2000-0703 (WIPO Nov. 10, 2000), in which the panel found and subsequently applied to the UDRP, the four common-law grounds for the rehearing or reconsideration of a previously filed decision which include the discovery of credible and material evidence which could not have been reasonably foreseen or known at trial.