JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Tanguy Classen
Claim Number: FA1811001818218
Complainant is JUUL Labs, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Alyssa Worsham of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Tanguy Classen (“Respondent”), China.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <swissjuul.com>, registered with Domain.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.
Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on November 27, 2018; the Forum received payment on November 27, 2018.
On November 28, 2018, Domain.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <swissjuul.com> domain name is registered with Domain.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Domain.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the Domain.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 November 29, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of December 19, 2018 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@swissjuul.com. Also on November 29, 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 December 20, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson 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
1. Complainant, JUUL Labs, Inc., has used their JUUL mark in connection with vaporizer devices and accessories as early as April 2015. Complainant asserts rights in the JUUL mark based on registration with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 4,818,664, registered Sep. 22, 2015). Respondent’s <swissjuul.com>[i] domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JUUL mark, as the domain name incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the geographic term “swiss.”
2. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <swissjuul.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the JUUL mark in any manner.
3. Respondent’s use of the domain name does not amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent has used the domain name to divert internet users away from Complainant’s site by offering to sell counterfeit products.
4. Respondent registered and is using the <swissjuul.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business and attract, for commercial gain, users to the resolving website of the domain name where it sells counterfeit versions of Complainant’s goods.
5. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the JUUL mark.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Respondent has consented to transfer the domain name to the Complainant
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.”).
The Forum was copied on documentation submitted from Respondent to the Forum and Complainant, which is identified in this proceeding as “Other Correspondence.” In this document, Respondent consents to the transfer of the <swissjuul.com> domain name. Respondent states as follows:
Again you have my word, I have no problem into transferring the domain.
What futher (sic) info do you need or what should I do ?
Because Respondent has not contested the transfer of the <swissjuul.com> domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name to Complainant, the Panel will forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <swissjuul.com> domain name. See 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 Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . 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.”).
The Respondent having consented to transfer the <swissjuul.com> domain name to the Complainant, Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <swissjuul.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist
Dated: December 31, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page