Riccachemicalinc.com

The timeline behind riccachemicalinc.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 Ricca Chemical Company v. Affan Zahid Case No. D2026-1378 1. The Parties The Complainant is Ricca Chemical Company, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Brackett & Ellis, P.C., United States. The Respondent is Affan Zahid, Cameroon. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <riccachemicalinc.com> is registered with Name.com, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 31, 2026. On April 1, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 2, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the 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 April 28, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 29, 2026. The Center appointed Richard C.K. van Oerle as the sole panelist in this matter on May 1, 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. page 2 4. Factual Background The Complainant is a corporation in the United States that offers a variety of chemicals, analytical solutions, and standards for the scientific community. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations in the United States including, but not limited to, the following: - R RICCA CHEMICAL COMPANY (device), Trademark Registration Number 3027447, registered on December 13, 2005; - R RICCA CHEMICAL COMPANY (device), Trademark Registration Number 3027450, registered on December 13, 2005; - RICCA (device), Trademark Registration Number 4927432, registered on March 29, 2016. The registrations have been duly renewed and are still valid and will jointly be referred to, in singular, as the “Trademark”. The Complainant operates a website using the domain name <riccachemical.com>, which provides information regarding its company, services, and chemical products including certificates of information and safety data sheets as well as customer support. The Complainant secured the domain name at least as early as January 30, 1999 and has operated the website since. The disputed domain name was registered on January 10, 2026. The Complainant has submitted evidence showing that it resolves to a website that copies the Complainant’s official website to a substantial extent, including through featuring the Complainant’s logo, design elements and images from the Complainant’s website. At the top of the website (prominently displayed in a blue bar) is also the Complainant’s address, followed by the email address “[...]@riccachemicalinc.com”. Noting in particular the general powers of a panel articulated inter alia in paragraphs 10 and 12 of the Rules, it has been accepted that a panel may undertake limited factual research into matters of public record if it would consider such information useful to assessing the case merits and reaching a decision (see section 4.8 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”). Accordingly, the Panel found that a MX (Mail Exchange) record has been associated with the disputed domain name, indicating that the Respondent has set up an email account using the disputed domain name. 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 contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. Specifically, the disputed domain name is an intentionally slight variation of the Complainant’s active domain name. The disputed domain name also makes use of the Trademark by using a virtually identical format of the Complainant’s web page. Not only is the Trademark itself duplicated, but the overall architecture and images used on the website under the disputed domain name mimic and copy the images and structure of the Complainant’s website. This combination was seemingly done to cybersquat and trade on the Complainant’s good name and potentially use it to sell illegal substances. Accordingly, because the disputed domain name is similar in appearance, sound, and meaning to the Complainant’s registered Trademark, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark. page 3 Next, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant has found no evidence to demonstrate the Respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, unassociated with the services of the Complainant. The Complainant has found no evidence to indicate the Respondent (as an individual, business, or other organization) has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, even if the Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights. Further, the Respondent does not appear to be making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name, without intent for commercial gain. Instead, the Respondent intends to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the Trademark. The website at the disputed domain name does not appear to qualify as permissible fair use. Finally, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is cybersquatting, as the Respondent, through the disputed domain name, seeks to divert traffic from customers who search for the Complainant’s registered Trademark and domain name. By choosing and using the disputed domain name, the Respondent intentionally attempts to attract Internet users, for commercial gain, to the Respondent’s website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or of a product or service on the Respondent’s website. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith with the intent to deceive the Complainant’s customers and trade on the value of the Complainant’s good name. The Respondent registered the disputed domain name more than fifty years after the Complainant began using its R RICCA CHEMICAL COMPANY trademark and over a decade after the Complainant began using its RICCA trademark. As further evidence of bad faith, the Respondent’s website is virtually identical to the Complainant’s website. The Complainant’s website uses a particular color schematic and style throughout, which features a stylized “R” with a beaker and tear drop image (as is depicted in the Trademark) atop its page, features photos that duplicate those on the Complainant’s website, and offers for sale chemical compounds. The Respondent’s website utilizes the same color scheme, Trademark, and photos as the Complainant’s website. It appears the Respondent intends to deceive consumers into placing orders on their website when those consumers are seeking the Complainant’s website. The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements in order to succeed in its Complaint: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The burden of proof of each element is borne by the Complainant. The Respondent’s default does not by itself mean that the Complainant is deemed to have prevailed. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.3. page 4 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 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. The Panel finds the RICCA Trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here the descriptive term “inc”, and “chemical” when compared against RICCA mark, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, t he Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. There is no evidence that the Respondent is known by the “Ricca Chemical” designation or any similar designation. The Respondent used the disputed domain name for a website with apparently infringing content, prominently featuring the Trademark and purporting to offer identical goods. Given the prominent use of “Ricca Chemical” in the disputed domain name with the additional nondistinctive, descriptive term “inc” which refers to “incorporated” and accordingly to the Complainant’s corporate identity, consumers are likely to believe that the disputed domain name is related to, affiliated with, or otherwise sponsored by the Complainant and its Trademark whereas this is not the case. The Respondent therefore uses the disputed domain name to deliberately cause consumer confusion with the Complainant and its goods. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, claimed copycat site) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. Accordingly, the Respondent cannot establish any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to the Trademark and cannot prevail under the second element of the Policy. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. page 5 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. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Among these factors demonstrating bad faith registration and use is the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location. In the present case, the Panel finds it inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its Trademark when it registered the disputed domain name as: - the Complainant’s Trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name by a couple of decades; - the disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s RICCA mark in its entirety with the addition of the terms “chemical” (which, together with “ricca”, reproduces the dominant element of R RICCA CHEMICAL COMPANY and the Complainant’s domain name) and “inc”; and - the website linked to the disputed domain name copies the Complainant’s official logo and design, displays the Complainant’s official contact details, and provides information about the same products the Complainant offers. In the Panel’s view, the circumstances of this case indicate that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. MX records have been set for the disputed domain name which may be used to enable the sending of emails arguably using the “@riccachemicalinc.com” format potentially to mislead users into having them believe that these emails would originate from the Complainant, likely for phishing or fraudulent purposes. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, a claimed copycat site, constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <riccachemicalinc.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Richard C.K. van Oerle/ Richard C.K. van Oerle Sole Panelist Date: May 8, 2026

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