JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Alec Shtromandel
Claim Number: FA2201001981713
Complainant is JUUL Labs, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is Alec Shtromandel (“Respondent”), Alabama, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <juulmasters.com>, registered with Wix.com Ltd..
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 24, 2022; the Forum received payment on January 24, 2022.
On January 25, 2022, Wix.com Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <juulmasters.com> domain name is registered with Wix.com Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wix.com Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wix.com Ltd. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On January 27, 2022, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 16, 2022 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@juulmasters.com. Also on January 27, 2022, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts.
Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. Respondent did however send an email to the Forum, see below.
On February 21, 2022, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant states that it provides e-cigarettes and related products. Its products are an alternative for adult smokers which deliver nicotine satisfaction akin to a cigarette in a format that’s simple and easy to use. Complainant’s proprietary nicotine salt formula, design, and temperature regulation result in an experience that it believes created the first viable alternative to cigarettes for adult smokers. Since the company’s launch in 2005, JUUL vaporizers have gown immensely in popularity. Based on Nielsen retail monthly sales data for vapor devices, Complainant sold 16.2 million devices and posted more than $1 billion in revenue in 2018. As of 2020, Complainant represented more than 50% of the US e-cigarette market share and it had a market presence in more than a dozen countries. Complainant has rights in the JUUL mark based upon its registration in the United States in 2015. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is famous.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its JUUL mark it incorporates the mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic term “masters” and the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and is not authorized to use Complainant’s JUUL mark. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because Respondent uses the disputed domain to pass itself off as affiliated with Complainant offering competing, unauthorized goods.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent has registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith because Respondent registered the disputed domain name to pass itself off as affiliated with Complainant and for bad faith attraction for commercial gain. In addition, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the JUUL mark prior to registering the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. It its email to the Forum, Respondent states: “Not sure what this is but the site isn’t functional and never have been and is only setup as a test server”
Complainant has registered trademarks for the mark JUUL and uses it to market e-cigarettes and related products. The mark was registered in 2015.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2020.
The resolving website purports to offer for sale unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products; it displays Complainant’s mark and logo.
Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable."
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred:
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and
(2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations set forth in a complaint; however, the Panel may deny relief where a complaint contains mere conclusory or unsubstantiated arguments. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0 at ¶ 4.3; see also eGalaxy Multimedia Inc. v. ON HOLD By Owner Ready To Expire, FA 157287 (Forum June 26, 2003) (“Because Complainant did not produce clear evidence to support its subjective allegations [. . .] the Panel finds it appropriate to dismiss the Complaint”).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s JUUL mark in its entirety and merely adds the generic term “masters” and the “.com” generic top level domain (“gTLD”). Domain names which incorporate the entire mark and a generic term are usually considered confusingly similar, while adding a gTLD generally creates no distinction between a complainant’s mark and a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).). Therefore the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: when no response is submitted, WHOIS information can be used to show that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Chevron Intellectual Property LLC v. Fred Wallace, FA1506001626022 (Forum July 27, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <chevron-europe.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii), as the WHOIS information named “Fred Wallace” as registrant of the disputed domain name). Here, the WHOIS information of record lists the registrant of the disputed domain name as “Alec Shtromandel”. Therefore the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The resolving webpage prominently displays Complainant’s mark and logo, and purports to offer for sale unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products. Such use is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Fossil Group, Inc. v. song qiuxiang, FA 1699117 (Forum Nov. 28, 2016)(finding the use of the domain name to appear like the official Fossil website for Respondent’s commercial benefit established that Respondent did not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name); see also Fossil Group, Inc. v. wuwuima wu FA 1544486 (Forum Mar. 21, 2014) (finding the use of the Fossil mark and images of what appear to be genuine Fossil products including watches, wallets and purses established that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name); see also Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant’s mark and various photographs related to the complainant’s business). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent alleges that the resolving website was only set up as a test and has never been functional. The Panel is not convinced of this: the resolving website is a fully functional e-commerce site and, as already mentioned, it displays Complainant’s mark and logo, and purports to offer for sale unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products.
Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Further, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to purport to sell unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products. Use of a domain name to create a false impression of affiliation with a complainant in order to compete with and disrupt the complainant’s business is behavior indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Crocs, Inc. v. jing dian, Case No. FA1410001587214 (Forum Dec. 12, 2014) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to display the complainant’s marks to sell unauthorized goods); see also Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. ailong c ailong xiong, Case No. FA1407001571172 (Forum Sept. 5, 2014) (finding bad faith where respondent used the disputed domain name in connection with a website purportedly offering unauthorized goods of Complainant and stating that the respondent’s bad faith was “apparent in that [r]espondent is profiting from the likelihood Internet users will mistakenly believe the goods sold through the domain name’s website are legitimate…”); see also Am. Int’l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith where the respondent hosted a website that “duplicated Complainant’s mark and logo, giving every appearance of being associated or affiliated with Complainant’s business . . . to perpetrate a fraud upon individual shareholders who respected the goodwill surrounding the AIG mark”); see also Hunter Fan Co. v. MSS, FA 98067 (Forum Aug. 23, 2001) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to sell the complainant’s products without permission and mislead Internet users by implying that the respondent was affiliated with the complainant). The Panel therefore finds that Respondent registered and uses the domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <juulmasters.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: February 21, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page