P makes a big difference in reverse domain name hijacking case — A missing

Yes, two firms can operate with names that differ by one letter.

A chemicals firm has been found to have engaged in reverse domain name hijacking over the domain name sichem.com.

Sipchem Europe S.A. is part of the Saudi International Petrochemical Firm (Sipchem), founded in 1999.

The firm filed a cybersquatting dispute with World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO), complaining that vanBaerle Management AG was cybersquatting with the domain name.

Earlier this year, vanBaerle Management AG needed to set up a fresh operating firm. One of the family members of the firm ownership had set up a holding firm called Sichem Holding AG in 1995, so it decided to use that name.

In March, the Respondent purchased sichem.com. (NameBio shows it paid $4,777 to purchase the domain through Sedo.)

When the case was filed in July, the Respondent had by now set up a site for its business on the domain.

WIPO panelist Tobias Zuberbühler determined (pdf) that Sipchem did not show that the domain owner lacked rights or legitimate interests in the domain, nor did it show it was registered and used in bad faith.

He found this was a case of reverse domain name hijacking:

In the present case, a look at the website connected with the disputed domain name could have indicated that the Respondent was running a legitimate business (in a distinct and separate field of the chemical industry) without targeting the Complainant. A check of the Commercial Registry at the Respondent’s domicile would have revealed that the firm “Sichem Holding AG” had been registered since 1995, four years ahead of the Complainant was established in 1999 and long ahead of the SIPCHEM trademark was registered in 2016.

Against this background, the Panel finds that the Complainant has engaged in an attempt of RDNH.

Watson Farley & Williams represented the Complainant, and BOHEST AG represented the domain name owner.