Ritebite.com

The timeline behind ritebite.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Naturell India Private Limited v. Michael Edwards Case No. D2026-1317 1. The Parties The Complainant is Naturell India Private Limited, India, represented by Rahul Chaudhry & Partners, India. The Respondent is Michael Edwards, Canada. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <ritebite.com> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 27, 2026. On March 27, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Masked / Whois Privacy Protection Foundation) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 2, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 6, 2026. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 8, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was originally April 28, 2026, and was later extended to May 2, 2026, at the Respondent’s request. The Respondent sent several email communications to the Center on April 20 and May 7, 2026. The Response was filed with the Center on May 1, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Luca Barbero as the sole panelist in this matter on May 29, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a food and beverage company based in India, specialized in the manufacturing and marketing of nutritional bars, protein cookies, protein chips, and health products. Founded in 1991 with the aim of promoting a healthier lifestyle in India, the company pioneered the introduction of stevia and the launch of protein bars in the Indian market. The Complainant markets its products under the brands MAX PROTEIN and RITEBITE. The RITEBITE brand, used since 2003, includes protein bars, fiber bars, and other products. Since October 30, 2024, the Complainant has been part of Zydus Wellness Limited. The Complainant’s products are widely available throughout India through various sales channels. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations consisting of or encompassing RITEBITE in India, including: - Indian trademark registration No. 1353625 for RITEBITE (word mark), registered on April 27, 2005, in class 30; and - Indian trademark registration No. 2286097 for RITEBITE MAX PROTEIN (figurative mark), registered on February 20, 2012, in class 30. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <ritebite.in>, registered on July 16, 2018 and which currently resolves to a parking page with pay-per-click links. The RITEBITE brand and products are advertised and also offered for sale on the Complainant’s website at “www.maxprotein.in”. The disputed domain name <ritebite.com> was registered on August 8, 2004, but the Respondent acquired it on January 8, 2015. The disputed domain name currently resolves to a “launching soon” page. According to the screenshots saved on the Internet Archive “www.archive.org” and provided by the Parties, the disputed domain name resolved, on February 21, 2015, and May 7, 2015, to a website promoting food delivery services while from October 2016 to at least August 2022, it was directed to an error page. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant states that it is the owner of the registered and well-known trademark RITEBITE, which was first used in August 2003 in India. The Complainant also asserts that its domain name <ritebite.in> has acquired distinctiveness and is associated with the business of the Complainant, and hence, the Complainant has both statutory and common law rights in the RITEBITE mark. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical to its trademark RITEBITE, as it reproduces the trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. page 3 The Complainant submits that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since: i) the Respondent has no rights in the RITEBITE mark and is in no way related, licensed or authorized by the Complainant to use its RITEBITE mark in any way, including for the registration of the disputed domain name; ii) the disputed domain name, being identical to the Complainant’s registered trademark RITEBITE, clearly misleads users into believing that the disputed domain name originates from the Complainant; and iii) ever since its registration, the disputed domain name has been passively held and has not been used for any bona fide use. As a circumstance evidencing bad faith, the Complainant submits that the Respondent’s bad faith registration of the disputed domain name is established by the fact that the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s mark and was acquired by the Respondent after the RITEBITE mark was first used by the Complainant. The Complainant claims that registration of a domain name that is identical to the widely-known trademark by an unaffiliated/unknown entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith and that no plausible good faith use could arise with the disputed domain name by the Respondent without misleading customers as to the source or affiliation of the disputed domain name. The Complainant further states that the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name in opportunistic bad faith, wherein any use of the same would only result in confusion and exploitation of the goodwill, reputation, and fame of the Complainant’s RITEBITE mark. The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use. The Complainant also contends that, since the Respondent redirected the disputed domain name to a registrar parking page with commercial links in January 2026, the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name for domain squatting purposes and intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of his website. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent intended to disrupt the business of the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent denies all allegations and remedies requested by the Complainant and requests that the Panel make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (“RDNH”) against the Complainant for the following reasons. With regards to the Complainant’s assertions that the disputed domain name has been registered but unused since August 8, 2004, and that the Respondent engaged in more than twenty years of passive domain squatting, the Respondent denies such allegations stating that he acquired the disputed domain name on January 8, 2015 — not in 2004 — for a specific and documented business purpose, and actively used the disputed domain name in 2015 to operate a meal-delivery business in Toronto, Canada. The Respondent states that he then temporarily lost control of the disputed domain name in an unrelated employment legal matter, but he subsequently recovered it on November 27, 2023, once the employment legal matter was settled. The Respondent further contends that prior to receiving the Center’s Notification of the Complaint on April 8, 2026, he was not aware of the Complainant and of its RITEBITE protein-bar brand and that he first became aware of the Complainant's trademark filings only in the course of preparing the Response. With regards to the first element, the Respondent does not dispute the first element under the low threshold applied by UDRP panels, but notes that though the Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the RITEBITE mark (with its earliest registration - No. 1353625 – filed on April 27, 2005) and the disputed domain name textually corresponds to that mark, the Complainant’s registrations are confined to India and the Complainant does not own registered trademarks in Canada, which is the Respondent’s home jurisdiction, or in the United page 4 States of America (“United States”), i.e. the jurisdiction most closely associated with the “.com” gTLD and with the Registrar of the disputed domain name. Indeed, the Respondent also notes the Complainant had twice filed and twice abandoned – failing to respond to United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Office Actions – United States trademark applications, i.e. the United States trademark application Nos. 88585977 for RITEBITE MAX PROTEIN, filed on August 20, 2019 and abandoned on June 8, 2020, and the United States application No. 79357805 for RITEBITE MAX PROTEIN – 7 GRAIN BREAKFAST COOKIE, filed on August 10, 2022 and abandoned on March 18, 2024. The Respondent further contends that the expression “rite bite” is a phonetic variant of the common English phrase “right bite,” a descriptive phrase with obvious legitimate uses across food, nutrition, health, wellness, and dentistry (where “bite” is the technical term for occlusion). Particularly, the Respondent points out that unaffiliated third parties independently operate under the phrase and that in the Respondent’s own Greater Toronto Area, an established dental business operates as “Rite Bite Denture & Implant Clinic”. With reference to the Complainant’s claims regarding the Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Respondent rebuts that well before the present dispute, he engaged in a bona fide offering of goods or services using the disputed domain name and made demonstrable preparations to do so in the following way: - On January 1, 2015, the Respondent initiated an arm’s-length purchase inquiry for the disputed domain name from a third party. - On January 8, 2015, the Respondent purchased the disputed domain name for USD 2,550. - In early 2015, the Respondent established Google Workspace email accounts based on the disputed domain name for business use. - In 2015, the Respondent built and launched a website for a Toronto-based meal-delivery service, advertising weekly pricing of USD 100 and including a sign-up form and pilot launch date. - On January 23, 2015, the Respondent sent an email from a personal address to a third party, copying an email address based on the disputed domain name, announcing the website launch and inviting him to a pilot program the week of February 1st. - On January 23, 2015, the Respondent placed a test order through a customer-subscription backend, receiving an automated confirmation detailing a “1x Ritebite Weekly Subscription for C$100.00” with a scheduled delivery of Sunday, February 1, 2015. - In 2015, the Respondent commissioned custom-printed RITEBITE promotional t-shirts for distribution. The Respondent also states to have invested approximately CAD 4,000 into the business, covering expenses such as the acquisition of the disputed domain name, software and SaaS subscriptions, promotional merchandise, and other operating costs and submits that although the pilot project did not reach the self-imposed minimum of ten subscribers and was paused in mid-2015, the outcome is irrelevant to the analysis under Policy, 4(c)(i). The Respondent further underlines that the Policy does not mandate commercial success but requires that the disputed domain name has been used or that demonstrable preparations were made for its use in connection with a bona fide offering, and concludes that even short-lived, unsuccessful, or paused business ventures can establish rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, provided the use or preparations are genuine. In view of the above, the Respondent further contends that the loss of some email accounts and related records is also immaterial because the subscription lapsed after the business was paused and payments ceased and submits that the available documentary evidence, including the purchase records of the disputed domain name, a test-order receipt dated January 23, 2015, email correspondence on the same date, captures from the Wayback Machine, promotional merchandise from 2015, and the Respondent’s continued renewal of the disputed domain name, should collectively suffice to demonstrate bona fide use of the page 5 disputed domain name in 2015, supporting the conclusion that the Respondent made genuine efforts to use the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate business offering during that period. With reference to the choice of the disputed domain name, the Respondent emphasizes that he chose the name “RiteBite” in 2015 due to its descriptive meaning relevant to the meal-delivery business. The business was based on providing customers with meals that represented “the right bite,” meaning the correct portion size, appropriate macronutrients, and healthy food choices for those focused on healthy eating. The use of the phonetic spelling “rite” instead of “right” was intended as a playful variation while maintaining the original descriptive concept. Additionally, the availability of a short and memorable eight-character “.com” domain name at a reasonable market price influenced the choice and submits that at the time of selection. The Respondent submits that he had no knowledge of any existing third-party RITEBITE trademarks at the time of acquisition of the disputed domain name and did not intend to reference or target any other brand. Lastly, the Respondent highlights that between January 2022 and November 2023, the disputed domain name was not in the Respondent’s control due to a separate employment legal issue. During this time, the Respondent maintains that the disputed domain name, along with other personal domain names, was his own property and unrelated to his former employer. The issue was settled confidentially, and the disputed domain name was returned to the Respondent on November 27, 2023, as confirmed by the Registrar’s notification submitted in attachment to the Response. With reference to the Complainant’s claims regarding bad faith registration and use, the Respondent denies all allegations stating that: i) he did not register the disputed domain name in 2004 as the disputed domain name was first registered by an unrelated third party on that date, whilst the Respondent purchased the disputed domain name on January 8, 2015; ii) in January 2015, when the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name, the Complainant was an Indian health-food company with no presence in Canada or North America that could reasonably have been expected to come to a Canadian entrepreneur's attention; iii) the Complainant’s brand was and remains primarily known in India; and iv) the Complainant owns trademark registrations in India, and the Complainant holds no registrations in Canada or in the United States. Moreover, the Respondent highlights that contrary to the Complainant’s allegations, the disputed domain name has not been passively held since the exhibit on which the Complainant’s passive-holding claim rests, contains a Wayback Machine capture of the disputed domain name showing the Respondent’s live meal- delivery business, including the beta launch date (“Beta delivery starts on February 1”), weekly pricing (“$100/week”), a customer sign-up form, the service description (“Your week’s worth of healthy & balanced foods. Ready-to-eat & ready-to-cook meals”), and a branded contact address based on the disputed domain name. The Respondent submits that this capture, in the Complainant’s own exhibit, conclusively defeats the Complainant’s body-text assertion that the disputed domain name has remained unused since 2004. The Respondent further contends that the Complainant’s claim regarding a screenshot from January 2026 showing the disputed domain name pointing to a Registrar’s parking page with sponsored links, which would suggest cybersquatting, is misleading, and the case cited is not relevant since the Respondent has shown legitimate interest. The Respondent explains that since the disputed domain name was restored to the Respondent on November 27, 2023, it has not used a custom website or generated revenue and submits that any page displayed on the website at the disputed domain name is a default Registrar’s page without the Respondent's input. The Respondent further argues that the Complainant did not try to contact him before filing the Complaint and notes that the lack of contact suggests the Complainant may be using the UDRP proceeding as a way to cheaply acquire a domain name it could not negotiate for. page 6 Lastly, the Respondent rebuts that he is not a domain squatter and has no history of registering domain names related to others’ trademarks and concludes that not only the Complaint lacks evidence and should be denied, but the Panel should also make a finding of RDNH against the Complainant. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. Indeed, the Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of a valid trademark registration for RITEBITE (word mark) in India. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. In addition, the gTLD “.com” can be disregarded under the first element test, being a standard registration requirement. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. Therefore, the Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests In light of the Panel’s findings under the following section, it is not necessary to address this issue separately. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Based on the records, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name, despite being registered since 2004, was acquired by the Respondent on January 8, 2015, years after the registration of the Complainant’s trademark RITEBITE. Therefore, an online trademark search could have revealed the existence of the Complainant’s trademark at the time the Respondent acquired the disputed domain name. page 7 However, the Panel also notes that the Complainant’s trademark RITEBITE and its additional marks consisting of RITEBITE in combination with other words and/or design elements are registered only in India and that the Complainant’s RITEBITE products appear to be primarily sold in the Indian territory. Whilst the evidence provided by the Complainant shows a certain degree of notoriety of the trademark RITEBITE in India, especially in association with the Complainant’s trademark MAX PROTEIN, in connection with the Complainant’s protein bars, the Complainant’s trademark has not been registered in Canada, where the Respondent is located, and the Complainant has not demonstrated the trademark notoriety outside India. In addition to the above, the Complainant’s trademark RITEBITE is promoted via the Complainant’s website “www.maxprotein.in”, whilst the Complainant’s <ritebite.in> domain name is directed to a parking page. The Panel also acknowledges the Respondent’s contentions concerning the selection of the “rite bite” terms as a phonetic variant of the common English phrase “right bite”, and the Respondent has indeed demonstrated that “rite bite” or “ritebite” have often been used by independent third parties unaffiliated with the Complainant who operate for different commercial purposes across food, nutrition, health, wellness, and dentistry (where “bite” is the technical term for “occlusion”). Considering the terms “rite bite” encompassed in the Complainant’s mark do not appear to be exclusively referrable to the Complainant and its products, to demonstrate the Respondent’s bad faith it is necessary that the Complainant shows that the Respondent actually intended to target the Complainant’s mark through the registration and use of the disputed domain name. However, the disputed domain name currently resolves to a “launching soon” page and the historical screenshots of the websites to which the disputed domain name directed in the past years do not show any reference to the Complainant’s RITEBITE protein bars. The Respondent asserted that he registered the disputed domain name for use in connection with its meal-delivery business and the historical screenshots dated 2015 provided by the Parties indeed show that the disputed domain name was pointed, even though for a brief period of time, to a website promoting a food-delivery business under the RITEBITE mark. Furthermore, the Panel sees no other evidence on the record demonstrating that the Respondent acquired and used the disputed domain name with the specific intent to capitalize on the Complainant’s trademark rights. Indeed, based on the additional screenshots provided by the Parties, including one provided by the Complainant showing the disputed domain name redirecting to a parking page with sponsored links in January 2026, the disputed domain name has not been used with website content displaying the Complainant’s figurative mark and products. In addition, the Respondent did not contact the Complainant to offer the disputed domain name for sale and, according to the records, the Respondent has not been involved in a pattern of bad faith registrations. Under the circumstances, the Complainant’s statement that the Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name – at the time of this Decision and in the prior years – amounts to bad faith is not sufficient to demonstrate that the Respondent acted in bad faith. Therefore, the Panel finds that, on balance of probabilities, the third element of the Policy has not been established. D. Reverse Domain Name Hijacking Paragraph 15(e) of the Rules provides that, if after considering the submissions, the Panel finds that the Complaint was brought in bad faith, for example in an attempt at Reverse Domain Name Hijacking or to harass the domain-name holder, the Panel shall declare in its decision that the Complaint was brought in bad faith and constitutes an abuse of the administrative proceeding. The mere lack of success of the complaint is not, on its own, sufficient to constitute reverse domain name hijacking. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.16. The Panel is not persuaded that the circumstances of this case justify a finding of RDNH. The Complainant has a long-standing registration for the RITEBITE mark in India, which predates the acquisition of the disputed domain name by the Respondent and is identically reproduced in the disputed domain name. page 8 Moreover, the Complainant’s trademark is unusual, and the disputed domain name has been directed for most of the time since registration to parking pages with sponsored links or other landing pages. Therefore, the Complainant’s case that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, while unsuccessful, was not so weak as to render the filing of the Complaint an act of bad faith. Therefore, the Panel declines the request to make a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is denied. /Luca Barbero/ Luca Barbero Sole Panelist Date: June 13, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.