JUUL Labs, Inc. v. David Perez
Claim Number: FA1812001820738
Complainant is JUUL Labs, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Alyssa M. Worsham of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is David Perez (“Respondent”), Mexico.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <juulmexico.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.
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.
Steven M. Levy, Esq. as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on December 12, 2018; the Forum received payment on December 12, 2018.
On December 14, 2018, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <juulmexico.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, LLC 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 December 17, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of January 7, 2019 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@juulmexico.com. Also on December 17, 2018, 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.
On January 8, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Steven M. Levy, Esq. 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, JUUL Labs, Inc., is a well-known nicotine vaporizer (“e-cigarette”) company. Complainant has rights in the JUUL trademark based upon its extensive use of the mark and its registration thereof in many countries around the world including the United States and Mexico. Respondent’s <juulmexico.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JUUL mark, as it is merely a combination of the mark, the .com generic top-level domain (“gTLD”), and the geographic term “Mexico”.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <juulmexico.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the JUUL mark in any manner. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the domain resolves to a webpage where Respondent offers counterfeit or unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products for sale or engages in information gathering from site visitors, perhaps in furtherance of a phishing scheme. Although authentic JUUL products are sold through convenience stores and other retail outlets, they are only offered online through Complainant’s website. As such, Respondent cannot be an authorized online reseller.
Respondent registered and is using the <juulmexico.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the Infringing Domain Name to lure internet users to Respondent’s own webpage that is branded with the JUUL Mark and promises fraudulent or unauthorized products for Respondent’s commercial gain, or perhaps offers no products at all and is merely an information gathering site. Finally, 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.
(1) the domain name registered by Respondent is confusingly similar to a trademark in which Complainant has rights;
(2) Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(3) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used by Respondent in bad faith.
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 and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”).
Complainant claims rights in the JUUL mark based upon its extensive multi-national use of the mark as well as its registration of the mark in numerous countries. Registration of a mark with with national trademark offices is sufficient to establish rights in a mark. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (stating, “Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Complainant provides examples of its use of the JUUL mark as well as a list of its current United States registrations. Also submitted are copies of two of its USPTO registration certificates claiming the JUUL mark and stating a date of first use in commerce of June 1, 2015. Although the Complaint states that its Exhibit D includes “a worldwide schedule of trademark filings for JUUL marks” and references this same exhibit when it states that Complainant has “obtained registrations for the mark in … Mexico”, the Panel’s review of this exhibit shows only images and listings of Complainant’s United States trademarks. Despite this disconnect between the submitted evidence and the statements in the Complaint, this Panel finds that the Complainant has rights in the JUUL mark under the threshold standard of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Next, Complainant argues that the Respondent’s <juulmexico.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the JUUL mark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety along with a geographic term and a gTLD. The addition of geographic terms and gTLDs are insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Dell Inc. v. Suchada Phrasaeng, FA 1745812 (Forum Sep. 28, 2017) (“Adding geographical terms does not sufficiently distinguish a domain name from a mark to prevent a finding of confusingly similarity under a Policy ¶4(a)(i) analysis.”) Complainant asserts that Respondent’s <juulmexico.com> domain name incorporates the JUUL mark in its entirety, the geographic term “Mexico”, and the “.com” gTLD. With reference to inclusion of the word “Mexico” in the disputed domain name, this word actually enhances confusion with the JUUL mark as it directly relates to the Complainant’s sale of its products in the country of Mexico. See, e.g., Transamerica Corporation v. Remigio Lopez / Transamerica, FA 1591667 (Forum Jan. 5, 2015) (<transamericamexico.com> found confusingly similar to the TRANSAMERICA trademark where “the inclusion of the geographic term ‘mexico’ serves no distinguishing value especially given Complainant’s reach into Mexico.”)
For the above-stated reasons, the Panel finds that the <juulmexico.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the JUUL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to demonstrate that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) (“Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests”).
Complainant alleges that Respondent fails to use the <juulmexico.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii). The main argument in support of this is that the JUUL branded products offered for sale at the Respondent’s website are either counterfeit or unauthorized. In the case of Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Chunhai Zhang, D2012-0136 (WIPO, April 10, 2012) the Panel addressed the question of what type of evidence might suffice to demonstrate that products offered at the website of a disputed domain name are counterfeit. First, the Panel rejected the notion that, within the context of a UDRP case, hard physical proof of counterfeiting by a “trap” purchase and subsequent product examination is required. Id. But it also agreed that mere conclusory allegations of counterfeiting, without more, may not be sufficient. Id. Ultimately, the Panel concluded that “[c]ircumstantial, rather than direct, evidence of counterfeiting may well suffice…” and it gave an example such as “branded goods offered for sale at exceptionally low prices…” Id. Another case noted that screenshots of products offered at an accused website which appear to be “of poor quality and different in design and construction from true” branded products may be accepted as evidence of counterfeiting. C. & J. Clark International Limited v. zhu yuan, FA 1486918 (Forum Apr. 22, 2013).
In the present case, the Complaint makes inconsistent statements such as “Complainant has confirmed that the products are counterfeit”, “JUUL Labs believes any promises of JUUL Labs offerings by the website are for counterfeit goods”, and “unfortunate Internet users who attempt to purchase these purported JUUL offerings may receive counterfeit products.” However, despite these conclusory statements, no evidence is supplied nor are arguments asserted to support the assertion that the goods being offered at the <juulmexico.com> website are in fact counterfeit. Furthermore, the Complainant states that any goods sold at Respondent’s site must be unauthorized as Complainant’s own website is the only legitimate online source for authentic JUUL products. However, the Complaint points out that authentic JUUL products are sold in “convenience stores and other retail outlets”. As such, the Complaint does not address the possibility that the goods offered at Respondent’s website may have been purchased at such shops and then resold through the site. In light of the above, it is not clear to the Panel that the goods offered for sale at the <juulmexico.com> website are either counterfeit or unauthorized. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Alvaro Botello / JUUL Shop Mexico, FA 1798797 (Forum Aug. 27, 2018) (similar evidentiary shortcomings).
However, use of a disputed domain name to impersonate a complainant may not be considered a bona fide offer of goods and services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See Emaar Properties PJSC v. Marguerite Patrie, FA 1635622 (Forum Oct. 22, 2015) (“Respondent has failed to provide a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) and Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) [where] Respondent’s website also features copyrighted photographs that were, upon information and belief, taken directly from Complainant’s website, and purports to offer hotel reservations for Complainant’s Al Manzil Hotel.”). Here, from the screenshots submitted into evidence, it is obvious to the Panel that the website of the <juulmexico.com> domain name is designed and organized so as to impersonate the Complainant and pass itself off as being a legitimate site of the Complainant. The website prominently features the same graphic logo for the JUUL mark as used by the Complainant, and it displays a large number of professionally produced photographs of the Complainant’s products and packaging. Finally, the site’s footer displays the notice “Derechos de autor © 2018 JUUL Mexico. Todos los Derechos Reservados” (in English: Copyright © 2018 JUUL Mexico. All rights reserved” and displays a contact email address of “contacto@juulmexico.com”.
Furthermore, even assuming that the JUUL products offered on the the <juulmexico.com> website are authentic, Respondent’s use of the domain name does not satisfy the test for a bona fide offering of goods or services set out in the seminal case of Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., D2001-0903 (WIPO, November 6, 2001) for the reason that Respondent’s website contains no mention or other indication of its lack of a relationship with the Complainant. As noted above, the site’s footer and its displayed email address do quite the opposite – they convey the false impression that Respondent is, in fact, the Complainant.
Under the circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent fails to use the <juulmexico.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii).
Complainant further argues that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <juulmexico.com> domain name because Respondent is not authorized or permitted to use Complainant’s JUUL mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Where a response is lacking, relevant WHOIS information may be used to identify the respondent per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Dale Anderson, FA1504001613011 (Forum May 21, 2015) (concluding that because the WHOIS record lists “Dale Anderson” as the registrant of the disputed domain name, the respondent was not commonly known by the <statefarmforum.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)). Additionally, lack of authorization from complainant to use its marks may be further evidence that a respondent is not commonly known by a disputed domain name. See Indeed, Inc. v. Ankit Bhardwaj / Recruiter, FA 1739470 (Forum Aug. 3, 2017) (”Respondent lacks both rights and legitimate interests in respect of the at-issue domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s trademark in any capacity and, as discussed below, there are no Policy ¶4(c) circumstances from which the Panel might find that Respondent has rights or interests in respect of the at-issue domain name.”). The WHOIS record for the <juulmexico.com> domain name identifies the Respondent’s name as “David Perez” and no information in the record shows that Respondent is legitimately known otherwise or was authorized to use Complainant’s mark in any way. Thus, the Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <juulmexico.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
In light of the evidence presented and in the absence of any response, evidence, or other submission by the Respondent, the Panel concludes that Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶¶ 4(a)(ii).
It is asserted that the Respondent had actual knowledge of the Complainant’s rights in the JUUL trademark prior to Respondent’s registration of the <juulmexico.com> domain name based on the Complainant’s extensive and multi-national use of the mark and on the content of Respondent’s website. Actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark may support a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (“Complainant contends Respondent’s appropriation of Complainant’s trademark was a clear intent to trade upon Complainant’s reputation and goodwill in order to confuse Internet users. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent did have actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark prior to registration and this constitutes bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).”). Here, Complainant provides screenshots of the <juulmexico.com> website which displays the JUUL mark and logo as well as sales listings for JUUL branded e-cigarette products. Therefore, the Panel concludes that the Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the JUUL mark prior to registration of the disputed domain name, thereby laying the foundation for a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Next, Complainant claims that Respondent registered and uses the <juulmexico.com> domain name in bad faith in that Respondent lures internet users to its website that is branded with the JUUL Mark and promises counterfeit or unauthorized products. A further submitted screenshot of Respondent’s website shows a comment submission page and Complainant claims that “Respondent may also be running a phishing scam where consumers provide personal information to buy non-existent JUUL vaporizers”. For the reasons stated above the Panel declines to conclude that counterfeit or unauthorized products are being offered at Respondent’s website. Similarly, without any supporting evidence or argument, it cannot be concluded that the website is used merely to harvest user information for phishing purposes. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Alvaro Botello / JUUL Shop Mexico, supra.
Nevertheless, by copying Complainant’s well-known JUUL logo and using copied product and marketing photos and other indicia such as a copyright notice and email address that contains the JUUL mark, Respondent intentionally uses its <juulmexico.com> domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with such mark for the purpose of attracting customers to its website. This activity supports a finding of bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See, American Cheerleader Media, LLC. v. ilir shoshi / cheer, FA 1592319 (Forum Jan. 20, 2015) (“The Panel here finds that Respondent has engaged in bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) as … Respondent utilizes a logo and stylized font identical to Complainant’s own, as well as Complainant’s copyrighted images and text in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant.”)
With no opposing evidence or other submission before it, the Panel finds it reasonable to conclude that the Respondent registered and uses the <juulmexico.com> domain name to impersonate the Complainant. It is thus used for commercial gain based upon confusion with the JUUL mark in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) and, thus, ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <juulmexico.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Steven M. Levy, Esq., Panelist
Dated: January 9, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page