The disputed domain name <aablocks.com> was registered on November 22, 2017. The domain name is currently used in connection with an active website operated under the name “AA Blocks, Inc.”, which appears to be affiliated with the Respondent, AA Blocks LLC.<\/p>\n
<\/strong><\/p>\n FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT:<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant states that it is a California-based company operating under the name “Advanced Chemblocks, Inc.” since 2009 and active in the field of chemical products and related services.<\/p>\n The Complainant further submits that it is the licensed user of the Trademark identified above pursuant to a declaration executed by the trademark owner, Mr. Hongwang Du. The Complainant also claims common law or unregistered trademark rights in the signs “Advanced Chemblocks”, “Achemblock”, “A Chemblock”, and “ACHEMBLOCK ADVANCED CHEMBLOCKS INC”, allegedly used in commerce since at least 2011. In addition, the Complainant states that it has used the domain name <achemblock.com> since 2009.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n FACTS ASSERTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Respondent submits that it has operated a legitimate business in California under the name “AA Blocks” since 2017 and that the disputed domain name has continuously been used in connection with that business. The Respondent states that it is active in the chemical industry and that its principal, Mr. Branden Lee, has worked in the chemical sector for more than twenty-five years.<\/p>",
"other_legal_proceedings": " The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.<\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " COMPLAINANT’S CONTENTIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its registered Trademark and alleged unregistered trademarks because it incorporates the dominant element “blocks”, while the omission of the term “chem” does not avoid confusion. According to the Complainant, the prefix “aa” may be understood as an abbreviation of “ACHEMBLOCK ADVANCED CHEMBLOCKS”, thereby reinforcing an association with the Complainant.<\/p>\n The Complainant further argues that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is being used to create the false impression of an affiliation with the Complainant, relying on alleged similarities between the parties’ websites, their operation in the same industry, and evidence of alleged actual confusion. The Complainant also emphasizes that it had allegedly established unregistered trademark rights before the registration of the disputed domain name and that both parties operate in California. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is neither commonly known by the disputed domain name nor making legitimate non-commercial or fair use of it.<\/p>\n As regards bad faith, the Complainant submits that it had operated under the name “Advanced Chemblocks, Inc.” and used the domain name <achemblock.com> for many years before the registration of the disputed domain name in 2017. The Complainant argues that the Respondent intentionally selected a domain name resembling the Complainant’s marks and used it for a website allegedly similar to the Complainant’s website in order to confuse Internet users for commercial gain. The Complainant further relies on the Respondent’s use of a privacy service and argues that the disputed domain name was registered in anticipation of the Complainant’s nascent trademark rights.<\/p>\n In its supplemental filing, the Complainant submitted a declaration by Mr. Hongwang Du together with supporting documents, arguing that this material demonstrates that the Respondent had knowledge of the Complainant and its business for a considerable period of time. In particular, the Complainant points to purchase orders dating from 2019 showing that the Respondent purchased products from the Complainant, which, according to the Complainant, contradicts the Respondent’s claim that it was unaware of the “Achemblock” brand when registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant further argues that a company operating in California under a similar name would reasonably have conducted searches for potentially conflicting trademarks.<\/p>\n <\/p>\n RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS<\/strong><\/p>\n <\/p>\n The Respondent contends that the disputed domain name is not confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark. According to the Respondent, the Complainant’s Trademark is weak because the terms “chem blocks” are descriptive within the chemical industry, while the trademark registration itself contains a disclaimer regarding the wording “ADVANCED CHEMBLOCKS INC”. The Respondent submits that the domain name was selected because it combines the descriptive industry term “blocks” with the letters “AA”, used as a business identifier, and that the absence of the terms “chem” and “advanced” sufficiently distinguishes the domain name from the Complainant’s Trademark.<\/p>\n The Respondent further argues that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because it corresponds to its company name and has been used since 2017 in connection with a bona fide business in the chemical industry. The term “blocks” is commonly used descriptively in the industry, and many other companies use the term in their corporate names or domain names. The Respondent also points to its long-standing commercial use of the domain name through its website, sales activities, and listings on chemical platforms. It denies having copied the Complainant’s website or branding and contends that any similarities between the parties’ websites reflect common industry practices rather than targeting of the Complainant.<\/p>\n As regards bad faith, the Respondent submits that none of the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are present and there is no other evidence of its bad faith. The Respondent maintains that it did not register the domain name to sell it to the Complainant, prevent the Complainant from registering a corresponding domain, disrupt the Complainant’s business, or create confusion with the Complainant’s Trademark. According to the Respondent, the domain name was chosen because of the descriptive term “blocks” combined with “AA” and because it corresponds to the Respondent’s company name, rather than to target the Complainant. The Respondent further contends that it had no knowledge of the Complainant when it registered the domain name in 2017 and that the dispute is, in essence, a broader trademark dispute falling outside the scope of the UDRP.<\/p>\n In its supplemental filing, the Respondent argues that the additional evidence submitted by the Complainant relates to transactions that occurred years after the registration of the domain name and therefore does not demonstrate targeting at the time of registration. The Respondent reiterates that the domain name reflects common industry use of the term “blocks”, notes that the Complainant’s own invoices continue to use the name “Advanced Chemblocks, and maintains that the disputed domain name has been used in connection with a legitimate business since 2017.<\/p>",
"rights": " The Complainant has not shown the disputed domain name to be identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": " The Complainant has not shown the Respondent to lack rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"bad_faith": " The Complainant has not shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>",
"procedural_factors": " The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>\n Both Parties submitted supplemental filings. While supplemental filings are generally discouraged (see sec. 4.6 of WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”)), the Panel has exercised its discretion to admit and consider both of the supplemental submissions in rendering this decision. The Panel accepts the supplemental filings of both parties for the sake of completeness and finds them relevant for its findings on Reverse Domain Name Hijacking.<\/p>",
"decision": "Rejected",
"panelists": [
"Bart Van Besien",
"Douglas Isenberg",
"Igor Motsnyi"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-05-18 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant has submitted evidence that it is the licensed user of the United States trademark “ACHEMBLOCK Advanced ChemBlocks Inc”, registration number 6,573,245, owned by Mr. Hongwang Du. The trademark application was filed on December 10, 2020 and the trademark was registered on November 30, 2021 for goods and services in International Classes 1 (“Chemicals used in industry<\/em>”), 35 (“On-line wholesale and retail store services featuring chemicals, chemical building blocks, and reference compounds products<\/em>”, and 42 (“Chemical analysis; chemical engineering; chemical research; custom design and development of chemical reagents and biochemical assays; testing of chemicals; working on and evaluation of chemical syntheses<\/em>”).<\/p>\n The trademark certificate indicates claimed first use dates of February 8, 2011, for the Class 1 goods and February 8, 2020, for the Class 35 and 42 services.<\/p>\n This trademark certificate further states: “The mark consists of the wording \"ACHEMBLOCK\" and \"ADVANCED CHEMBLOCKS INC\" written in a stylised font in two horizontal lines, where the wording \"ACHEMBLOCK\" is located above the wording \"ADVANCED CHEMBLOCKS INC\", and a stylised image of an incomplete rhombus located at the left side of the wording<\/em>”.<\/p>\n The certificate also contains the following disclaimer: “No claim is made to the exclusive right to use the following apart from the mark as shown: \"ADVANCED CHEMBLOCKS INC\"<\/em>”.<\/p>\n The Panel will hereinafter refer to this trademark as the “Trademark” or the “Complainant’s Trademark”.<\/p>\n In addition, the Complainant asserts that it has used the signs “Advanced Chemblocks”, “Achemblock”, “A Chemblock”, and “ACHEMBLOCK ADVANCED CHEMBLOCKS INC” in commerce over an extended period of time. The Panel understands the Complainant to be asserting common law or unregistered trademark rights in these signs.<\/p>\n Finally, the Complainant submits that it is the licensed user of the domain name <achemblock.com>, which was registered by Mr. Hongwang Du in 2009 and has allegedly been used by the Complainant since that time.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"aablocks.com": "REJECTED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}