JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Temp name Temp Last Name / Temp Organization
Claim Number: FA1907001851254
Complainant is JUUL Labs, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Chelsea E. Carbone of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is Temp name Temp Last Name / Temp Organization (“Respondent”), Turkey.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <juulistanbul.com>, registered with Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S..
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.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on July 8, 2019; the Forum received payment on July 8, 2019.
On July 10, 2019, Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <juulistanbul.com> domain name is registered with Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. 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 15, 2019, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 5, 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@juulistanbul.com. Also on July 15, 2019, 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 August 6, 2019, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC 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.
Preliminary Issue: Required Language of Complaint
The Panel notes that the Registration Agreement is written in Turkish, thereby making the language of the proceedings in Turkish. The Panel has power to decide, per Rule 11, that because the Respondent signed an agreement in Turkish, the Complaint should be resubmitted in Turkish and the case recommenced.
Alternatively, the Panel may decide to continue the case with the English-language submission of the Complaint. See Rule 11.
Complainant has alleged that because Respondent is conversant and proficient in English, the proceeding should be conducted in English. The Panel has the discretion under UDRP Rule 11(a) to determine the appropriate language of the proceedings taking into consideration the particular circumstances of the administrative proceeding. See FilmNet Inc. v Onetz, FA 96196 (Forum Feb. 12, 2001 (finding it appropriate to conduct the proceeding in English under Rule 11, despite Korean being designated as the required language in the registration agreement because the respondent submitted a response in English after receiving the complaint in Korean and English). Complainant contends that the content found at the disputed domain name is in English. Additionally, requiring the proceeding to be conducted in Turkish would unduly burden Complainant, unnecessarily increase cost, and delay the proceeding.
Pursuant to UDRP Rule 11(a), the Panel finds in all the circumstances that English is the appropriate language in which to conduct the proceeding. Accordingly the Panel decides that the proceeding should be conducted in the English language.
A. Complainant
Complainant made the following contentions.
Complainant uses the JUUL mark in connection with vaporizer devices and accessories as a smoking alternative for adults. Complainant has rights in the JUUL mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,818,664, registered Sep. 22, 2015). See Compl. Ex. D. Respondent’s <juulistanbul.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the mark and merely adds the geographic term “Istanbul.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <juulistanbul.com> domain name. Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the mark. Respondent does not use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to the Respondent’s scam website which sells counterfeit or unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to collect personal information of Internet users.
Respondent registered and uses the <juulistanbul.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic and disrupt Complainant’s business. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to pass off as Complainant by displaying the JUUL mark and branding and offering for sale fraudulent products. Respondent uses the disputed domain name in furtherance of phishing by requesting email addresses from Internet users who visit the disputed domain name. Finally, Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the JUUL mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
1. Complainant is a United States company engaged in the provision of vaporizer devices and accessories as a smoking alternative for adults.
2. Complainant has established its trademark rights in the JUUL mark through its registration of the mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,818,664, registered Sep. 22, 2015).
3. Respondent registered the <juulistanbul.com> domain name on September 12, 2018.
4. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to the Respondent’s scam website which sells counterfeit or unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products and also uses the disputed domain name to collect personal information of Internet users.
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 first question that arises is whether Complainant has rights in a trademark or service mark on which it may rely. Complainant asserts rights in the JUUL mark based on registration with the USPTO. Registration of a mark with the USPTO is sufficient to establish a complainant’s rights in a mark. See Liberty Global Logistics, LLC v. damilola emmanuel / tovary services limited, FA 1738536 (Forum Aug. 4, 2017) (“Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently establishes the required rights in the mark for purposes of the Policy.”). Complainant provides copies of its registrations with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 4,818,664, registered Sep. 22, 2015). See Compl Ex. D. Therefore, the Panel finds Complainant has rights in the JUUL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The next question that arises is whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s JUUL mark. Complainant argues that the <juulistanbul.com> domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s JUUL mark as it wholly incorporates the mark and adds the geographic term “Istanbul.” The Panel notes the disputed domain name also adds the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) to Complainant’s mark. The addition of a geographic term and a gTLD may not 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.”); see also Tupelo Honey Hospitality Corporation v. King, Reggie, FA 1732247 (Forum July 19, 2017) (“Addition of a gTLD is irrelevant where a mark has been fully incorporated into a domain name and the gTLD is the sole difference.”). Therefore, the Panel finds the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant has thus made out the first of the three elements that it must establish.
It is now well established that Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. 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”).
The Panel finds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case that arises from the following considerations:
(a) Respondent has chosen to take Complainant’s JUUL trademark and to use it in its domain name, adding the geographic term “Istanbul” that does not negate the confusing similarity with Complainant’s trademark;
(b) Respondent registered the <juulistanbul.com> domain name on September 12, 2018;
(c) Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to the Respondent’s scam website which sells counterfeit or unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products and also uses the disputed domain name to collect personal information of Internet users;
(d) Respondent has engaged in these activities without the consent or approval of Complainant;
(e) Complainant argues Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the <juulistanbul.com> domain name as Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been given license or permission to use the JUUL mark or register domain names using Complainant’s mark. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Amazon Technologies, Inc. v. LY Ta, FA 1789106 (Forum June 21, 2018) (concluding a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name where the complainant asserted it did not authorize the respondent to use the mark, and the relevant WHOIS information indicated the respondent is not commonly known by the domain name). Additionally, lack of authorization to use a complainant’s mark may indicate that the respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. See Emerson Electric Co. v. golden humble / golden globals, FA 1787128 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“lack of evidence in the record to indicate a respondent is authorized to use [the] complainant’s mark may support a finding that [the] respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii)”). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Temp name Temp Last Name/Temp Organization,” and there is no other evidence to suggest that Respondent was authorized to use the JUUL mark. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii);
(f) Complainant argues Respondent does not use the <juulistanbul.com> domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Complainant contends that Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet users to the Respondent’s scam website which sells counterfeit or unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products. Using a disputed domain name to sell either counterfeit or unauthorized versions of a complainant’s products may not be a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Gumwand Inc. v. jared brading, FA 1794058 (Forum Aug. 6, 2018) (finding that use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website which purported to sell chewing gum-removal equipment which was either counterfeit versions of Complainant’s goods, or goods which competed directly with Complainant’s chewing gum-removal equipment business, was not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use within Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii)). Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving webpage of the disputed domain name which purportedly offers for sale Complainant’s products which Complainant contends are counterfeit or unauthorized. See Compl. Ex. G. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii);
(g) Complainant also argues that Respondent uses the <juulistanbul.com> domain name to collect personal information of Internet users. Use of a disputed domain name in furtherance of phishing may not be a use that demonstrates rights or legitimate interest in a disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). See Morgan Stanley v. Zhange Sheng Xu / Zhang Sheng Xu, FA1501001600534 (Forum Feb. 26, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that the respondent’s apparent phishing attempt provides further indication that the respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”). Complainant argues that when Internet users attempt to purchase the products offered via the disputed domain name, users are asked to enter their personal and financial information which may be a phishing scam. See Compl. Ex. G. The Panel agrees and finds Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
All of these matters go to make out the prima facie case against Respondent. As Respondent has not filed a Response or attempted by any other means to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Complainant has thus made out the second of the three elements that it must establish.
It is clear that to establish bad faith for the purposes of the Policy, Complainant must show that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and has been used in bad faith. It is also clear that the criteria set out in Policy ¶ 4(b) for establishing bad faith are not exclusive, but that Complainants in UDRP proceedings may also rely on conduct that is bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Having regard to those principles, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and used in bad faith. That is so for the following reasons.
First, Complainant asserts that Respondent registered and uses the <juulistanbul.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent uses the disputed domain name to divert Internet traffic and disrupt Complainant’s business. An attempt to trade competitively on a complainant’s mark via a confusingly similar disputed domain name can demonstrate bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Walgreen Co. v. MUHAMMAD SALEEM / WALGREENSGENERAL TRADING LLC, FA 1790453 (Forum Jul. 1, 2018) (“Respondent’s registration and use of the confusingly similar <walgreensshop.com> domain name in furtherance of trading competitively on Complainant’s WALGREENS trademark demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv).”). The Panel notes Complainant does not further specify its assertion. However, the Panel finds on the information available and drawing all reasonable inferences there from, that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Secondly, Complainant argues that Respondent uses the <juulistanbul.com> domain name to pass itself off as Complainant by displaying the JUUL mark and branding. Use of a disputed domain name to pass off as a complainant in order to confuse Internet users into believing a respondent is a complainant or otherwise associated or affiliated with a complainant can demonstrate bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Bittrex, Inc. v. Wuxi Yilian LLC, FA 1760517 (Forum Dec. 27, 2017) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where “Respondent registered and uses the <lbittrex.com> domain name in bad faith by directing Internet users to a website that mimics Complainant’s own website in order to confuse users into believing that Respondent is Complainant, or is otherwise affiliated or associated with Complainant.”). The Panel recalls Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving webpage of the disputed domain name which Complainant argues mimics Complainant’s website. See Compl. Ex. G. Complainant also provides a screenshot of Complainant’s own website for comparison. See Compl. Ex. E. Therefore, the Panel finds Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Thirdly, Complainant argues Respondent registered the <juulistanbul.com> domain name in bad faith as Respondent had knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the JUUL mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. Although panels have generally not regarded constructive notice as sufficient for a finding of bad faith, actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark prior to registering is adequate to find bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See 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.”). Using a disputed domain name as a clear attempt to trade upon the goodwill of a complainant can show actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark and be evidence of bad faith per 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).”). Complainant argues that Respondent’s display of Complainant’s JUUL mark and branding is an attempt to trade upon the goodwill of Complainant’s JUUL mark. See Compl. Ex. G. The Panel therefore finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the JUUL mark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, thus constituting bad faith registration under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Finally, in addition and having regard to the totality of the evidence, the Panel finds that, in view of Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name using the JUUL mark and in view of the conduct that Respondent has engaged in when using the disputed domain name, Respondent registered and used it in bad faith within the generally accepted meaning of that expression.
Complainant has thus made out the third of the three elements that it must establish.
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <juulistanbul.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honourable Neil Anthony Brown QC
Panelist
Dated: August 7, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page