0.5 Supplemental Filings
It is well established that additional submissions are not generally permitted whether designated “replies” or “rebuttals”. Paragraph 12 of the Rules provides for additional statements only at the Panel’s request in its sole discretion. Additional submissions are limited to “exceptional cases” only, as otherwise it would defeat the intention of the UDRP which is to provide for expeditious and streamlined dispute resolution with minimal resources being expended. If additional submissions were to become unexceptional, the dispute resolution procedure would become significantly more resource-consuming to all the actors. Such an outcome is contrary to the clear intention of ICANN.
Exceptional circumstances would chiefly involve a Complainant learning of new facts or evidence that it was not previously aware and which it could not reasonably have anticipated in filing its Complaint. Exceptional circumstances do not include an opportunity for the Complainant to merely rebut a Respondent’s arguments, to raise new arguments that could have been made in the Complaint, or to improve its case by submitting new evidence that it could have produced in its Complaint.
Where a Complainant believes that exceptional circumstances exist which justify the filing of an additional submission, the preferred procedure is for the Complainant to make its request to the Panel, accompanied by a brief explanation of the basis for the request. The Respondent should be provided an opportunity to briefly respond to the request and the claimed exceptional circumstances. The Panel may then adjudicate on the request and if approved, the Complainant may proceed to file its additional submission within any confines or parameters determined by the Panel. The Respondent should be provided adequate time to review and to respond to the Complainant’s additional submission.
Additional Information
Relevant Decisions
Universal Music Group N.V. and Universal City Studios LLC v. JT U Animation / U Animation, Forum FA2402002085375 < universalmusicgroup.com>, 3-Member, Transfer
If an additional submission simply reargues the same points, there is no reason to accept it; on the other hand, if the additional submission addresses arguments in the Response that Complainant could not have anticipated or provides information unavailable at the time the Complaint was submitted, the Panel may allow the additional submission. In the present case the Complainant’s Additional Submissions do not add any significant material to what is already a detailed and conclusive Complaint. The Panel has exercised its discretion not to have regard to the Complainant’s Additional Submissions and also the Respondent’s Additional Submissions, which are in reply to the Complainant’s Additional Submissions.
Csi Danışmanlık Ve Destek Hizmetleri Anonim Şirketi v. Ghadah M, WIPO No. D2024-2062, <shirvanhotels.com>, 3-member, Denied
Where unsolicited supplemental filings are admitted, it is usually because the material corrects some error or addresses something raised in a Response which could not reasonably have been anticipated or which was not otherwise appropriate to deal with until a respondent’s position on a particular point was clear…
Having accepted a supplemental filing from the Complainant, the Panel ordinarily would allow the Respondent an opportunity to respond in order to ensure that the parties are treated equally. Here, the Respondent has not requested such an opportunity, and in light of the Panel’s decision in the Respondent’s favor, the Panel did not deem it necessary to expressly invite the Respondent to submit a response, if it so desired.
Century Time Gems Ltd v. Century Aluminum SysAdmins, Century Aluminum, WIPO D2023-3480, <century.com>, Denied
In this case, it is unclear why the Complainant could not have carried out relevant investigations (and otherwise as may have been appropriate) before issuing the Complaint, so as to have been in a position to furnish the Panel with its concluded submissions from the outset. The Panel does not find there to be an exceptional or compelling reason to permit the Complainant to submit additional material of this nature at this stage in the proceeding.
Automobili Lamborghini S.p.A. v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Richard Blair, WIPO D2022-1570, <lambo.com>, 3-member, Transfer with dissenting opinion
The Panel subscribes to the view that unsolicited supplemental filings are to be discouraged. Accordingly, save for noting the most recent change of ownership details of the disputed domain name (discussed below), the Panel does not admit the Complainant’s supplemental filing, which mainly comprises submissions, which the Panel does not require, together with the results of a Google search against the term “Lambo” which the Complainant could (and should) have considered appending to its original Complaint.
One.com Group AB v. Stan N, CAC-UDRP-103567 (2021), <0ne.com>, Denied
The Panel has a very wide discretion on these issues and this Panel decided to allow both additional submissions. This is a highly contested case and it is better that the material be allowed and considered. That said, the Complainant filed a light complaint and effectively gave itself a reply. This is really unfair and puts the Respondent to extra work and costs and a disadvantage. That is to be discouraged and is unfortunate but it is still better to let the material in, in this case in the view of this Panel. The Respondent fully answered.
Saudi Arabian Mining Company (Ma’aden) v. Fundacion Privacy Services LTD, WIPO D2021-3590, <maaden.com>, 3-member, Transfer with a dissenting opinion
In the present case, the Panel has unanimously resolved to admit the Parties’ unsolicited supplemental filings. The Complainant could not reasonably have anticipated the nature of the Response when it filed the Complaint. By the same token, mindful of its duties under paragraph 10(b) of the Rules to ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case, the Panel unanimously considered it reasonable to admit the Respondent’s supplemental filing.