WIPO D2024-2888 · decided 10 September 2024
Sipchem Europe S.A. v. Sichem AG, vanBaerle Management AG
The parties
- Complainant
- Sipchem Europe S.A.
- Respondent
- Sichem AG, vanBaerle Management AG
What did the panel find on each element?
| Policy paragraph | Finding |
|---|---|
| 4(a)(i) Identical or confusingly similar | The panel found sichem.com confusingly similar to the SIPCHEM trademark, because an average Internet user could recognise SIPCHEM in the domain name by overlooking the missing letter "p". |
| 4(a)(ii) No rights or legitimate interests | The panel found the Respondent had a legitimate interest, because it used sichem.com for a bona fide offering of goods before notice of the dispute, under a name registered as Sichem Holding AG in 1995. |
| 4(a)(iii) Registered and used in bad faith | The panel found no bad faith, because it was plausible the Respondent did not know of Sipchem when it bought sichem.com in March 2024, and the domain name dated from 2005. |
Why does Sichem matter for a complaint today?
Sipchem Europe S.A. filed against sichem.com on July 16, 2024, and lost on September 10, 2024. The domain name was first registered on August 7, 2005. vanBaerle Management AG bought it in March 2024 for a business unit that sells a binder for biocide-free industrial paints under the name Sichem AG. A company of one of its owners had registered the name Sichem Holding AG in 1995. Sipchem relied on International Trademark Registration No. 1470136 for SIPCHEM, registered on April 18, 2019. The panel, Tobias Zuberbühler, accepted that sichem.com was confusingly similar to SIPCHEM. It still held that the Respondent used the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods before notice of the dispute. Then it found Reverse Domain Name Hijacking. A look at the website and a check of the commercial registry where the Respondent is based would have shown a legitimate business in a different part of the chemical industry. Section 4.16 of the WIPO Overview 3.1 lists facts on the website at the domain name, available before filing, as one ground for that finding. Before you file against a business that trades under a similar name, read its website and its company register entry.
What does the WIPO Overview 3.1 say?
The WIPO Overview 3.1 summarises how WIPO panels decide each issue. These sections cover the same point of law.
- Section 2.2: What qualifies as prior use, or demonstrable preparations to use the domain name, in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services?
- Section 4.16: In what circumstances will panels issue a finding of Reverse Domain Name Hijacking (RDNH)?
Who decided the case?
A single panelist, Tobias Zuberbühler, decided the case on 10 September 2024.
Read the decision
The full text is published by the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center. We summarise it here; the decision itself is the authority.
Summarised by Gergana Dimitrova. Checked against the published decision on 23 October 2026.
Someone has taken a domain that uses your brand?
The first assessment is free and comes back within 24 hours. If the case is weak we say so rather than take the fee.