JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Saadiq Daya / VanGo Vapes
Claim Number: FA2007001905655
Complainant is JUUL Labs, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Susanna P. Lichter of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Saadiq Daya / VanGo Vapes (“Respondent”), Canada.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <startjuuling.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.
Richard Hill as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 23, 2020; the Forum received payment on July 23, 2020.
On Jul 24, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <startjuuling.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 July 27, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 17, 2020 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@startjuuling.com. Also on July 27, 2020, 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 August 19, 2020, 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 is in the business of selling vaporizer devices and accessories. As background, Complainant’s products are an alternative for adult smokers. They 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 mid-2015, its vaporizers have been growing in popularity. Based on Nielsen retail monthly sales data of vapor devices, Complainant sold 51,454 units in January 2016. In 2018, Complainant sold 16.2 million devices and posted more than $1 billion in revenue. As of the end of 2018, the Complainant’s mark represented approximately 75% of the US e-cigarette 2018. As a result of the tremendous success of Complainant’s JUUL branded vaporizer devices and related accessories, people around the world have come to associate the JUUL marks exclusively with Complainant and therefore Complainant maintains trademark registrations and applications all over the world for its JUUL-related marks. Complainant has rights in the JUUL mark based upon registration in the United States in 2015.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its mark because it wholly incorporates the JUUL mark merely adding the generic term “start” along with the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s JUUL mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent doesn’t use the disputed domain for any bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, Respondent uses the domain to divert users to a misleading website that promotes competing products. Further, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to collect users’ personal information.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent disrupts Complainant’s business through promotion of competing products. Additionally, Respondent attempts to attract Internet users to its competing website for commercial gain through the sale of unauthorized products. Finally, Respondent has actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the JUUL mark as shown through use of Complainant’s logo and information on Respondent’s own website.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. It its email to the Forum, Respondent states, in pertinent part: “Ok we will transfer the domain.”
For the reasons set forth below, the Panel will not make any findings of fact.
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.
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."
In the present case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant. In accordance with a general legal principle governing arbitrations as well as national court proceedings, this Panel holds that it cannot act nec ultra petita nec infra petita, that is, that it cannot issue a decision that would be either less than requested, nor more than requested by the parties. Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.
See Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004); see also Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”).
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
For the reasons set forth above, the Panel will not analyze this element of the Policy.
Given the common request of the Parties, it is Ordered that the <startjuuling.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: August 19, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page