Skip to content
January 18, 2011 / Nate Harris

AMP Floracel Barred by Res Judicata

Summary of AMP Floracel v. Jean Perrin
(Nat. Arb. Forum Claim No. 1358993)

Filed: November 17, 2010; Decided: December 20, 2010 (Panelist: Bruce E. Meyerson)

Disputed domain name: <>

The Parties

Complainant AMP Floracel (“AMP”) contends that Respondent Jean Perrin is its competitor, and is “trying to confuse customers.”  According to AMP, Ms. Perrin’s registration of the disputed domain name are an “unscrupulous tactic to gain business.”

According to Ms. Perrin, AMP filed a nearly identical complaint in 2008. The complaint was dismissed because AMP had failed to demonstrate rights in the mark AMP FLORACEL. Though a company called CCH Nutrition Corporation had registered the mark, at the time there was no assignment or other evidence demonstrating that AMP had acquired rights in the mark.

The Panel notes that, “[d]espite the passage of two years, the Complaint in this case suffers from the same defects.  Complainant has once again failed to demonstrate any rights in the trademark, either by assignment or otherwise.” AMP did not meet the “high” burden required to show that a complaint should be reconsidered absent new facts.

Accordingly, the case is dismissed on res judicata grounds.


Relief is DENIED.


It would be interesting to hear the complainant’s side of this story, in particular, why they thought they would be more successful this time around.