0.13 Responsibilities on Complainant When Privacy is Lifted
Complainants should be given the opportunity by the Provider to amend their Complaint upon notification of the underlying Whois details from the registrar pursuant to Appendix E of the Temp Spec. This opportunity should be to not only amend the name of the Respondent to reflect the Whois details provided but can also entail amending the arguments and evidence included in the Complaint to include evidence and argument tailored to the newly discovered identify of the Respondent.
Complainants often do not take the opportunity to amend the substance of their Complaint and are not obliged to. Nevertheless, the failure of a Complainant to take into consideration the newly discovered identify of a Respondent could prejudice their Complaint, and in some cases result in a finding of RDNH. This may occur for example, where the Complainant proceeded despite the identity of the Respondent having been revealed to be exculpatory, such as where the Respondent’s surname corresponds to the disputed domain name.
Additional Information
Relevant Decisions
Cosmetic Research Group v. Robert Soskin, WIPO D2025-0784 <soskin.com>, Denied, RDNH
In the present case, it is abundantly clear from the documentation annexed to the Amended Complaint that the Complainant was well aware of the surname connotation of the disputed domain name in general, and the fact that the Respondent was specifically the bearer of that surname in particular…Even if the Complainant was in any doubt as to the Respondent’s likely bona fides, it would have been a simple matter for the Complainant to have reached out to the Respondent in the first instance rather than proceeding with the Amended Complaint.
Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. v. Simon Schwab, Forum FA2210002017845 <schwabfinancialcare.com>, 3-member, Denied with dissent, RDNH
Majority on RDNH:
Such a finding is justified only in rare cases, such as instances where a complainant proceeds despite the fact that it knew or should have known that it did not have a colorable claim under the Policy… In the view of a majority of the Panel, this case is such an instance. Complainant re-initiated the Complaint in this matter on December 2, 2022, knowing of Respondent’s rights or interests in the disputed domain name.
Dissenting View as to Bad Faith:
Panelist Sorkin dissents from this finding, noting that Respondent knew of Complainant’s famous mark, chose to register a domain name combining the mark with a generic term for Complainant’s industry, and is using it for a website purporting (apparently falsely) to provide services related to that industry. There does not appear to be a bona fide business operating as “Schwab Financial Care” or indeed any legal entity registered under that name, and Respondent has failed to come forward with any evidence of bona fide use occurring over the nearly two years since he registered the domain name and launched the corresponding website.
Law and Business Enterprises Worldwide S.L. v. Ann Labe, WIPO D2022-1040 <labe.com>, Denied, RDNH
That would have been still more evident after the Center provided the Respondent’s name and address details to the Complainant, which amended the Complaint to make “Ann Labe” the Respondent.
Bartko Zankel Bunzel & Miller v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Jan Bartko, WIPO D2022-0043 <bartko.com>, Denied, RDNH
Once the Registrar identified the underlying registrant as the Respondent Jan Bartko, an individual with a family name corresponding to the Domain Name, the Complainant should have amended the Complaint to address the obvious implications for its arguments concerning the Respondent’s prima facie legitimate interests and bad faith. The Complainant amended its Complaint, but only to add Mr. Bartko’s name to the caption.
Digest Commentary
Further Reading
Alstom’s cybersquatting arguments did not compute, Andrew Allemann, “DomainNameWire”, 2025