JUUL Labs, Inc. v. fadi kasto
Claim Number: FA2001001878488
Complainant is JUUL Labs, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Aaron D. Hendelman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California. Respondent is fadi kasto (“Respondent”), Michigan.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES
The domain names at issue are <juulecigs.com> and <juulvapes.com> (collectively “Domain Names”), 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.
Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 10, 2020; the Forum received payment on January 10, 2020.
On January 13, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <juulecigs.com> and <juulvapes.com> domain names are registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. 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 January 17, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 6, 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@juulecigs.com, postmaster@juulvapes.com. Also on January 17, 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 formal response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On February 10, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith 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 Names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
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). Respondent’s <juulecigs.com> and <juulvapes.com> domain names are identical or confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as they wholly incorporate the mark and merely adds the generic terms “ecigs” or “vapes.”
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <juulecigs.com> and <juulvapes.com> domain names. Respondent is not known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the JUUL mark. Respondent does not use the Domain Names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent is currently passively holding the Domain Names. Additionally, Respondent previously used the Domain Names to divert Internet users to a website which sells competing products.
Respondent registered and uses the <juulecigs.com> and <juulvapes.com> domain names in bad faith. Respondent uses the Domain Names to divert Internet traffic and disrupt Complainant’s business. Respondent previously used the Domain Names to pass off as Complainant by displaying the JUUL mark and branding and offer for sale unauthorized or competitive products. Finally, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the JUUL mark at the time of registration of the Domain Names.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. However by e-mail on February 8, 2020, following the notification of Respondent default, a member of the Inline Vape Legal department sent the following e-mail, which I note contained no evidence or submissions on the present matter:
“We recently received a letter through a relative about the domain names juulecigs.com and juulvapes.com. The purchaser of this domain name has passed away and these names were transferred to our Go Daddy account before his death. Thus the notice given was not sufficient to apprise us of this matter until too late. We are unaware of what steps have been taken regarding this action and would like to know where we stand and this point and what are our options going forward. Please give me a call at [number] or email me back.”
Complainant holds trademark rights for the JUUL mark. Each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JUUL mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Names 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 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”).
Complainant has rights in the JUUL mark based upon registration of the mark with the USPTO (e.g. Reg. No. 4,818,664, registered Sep. 22, 2015). Registration of a mark with the USPTO sufficiently confers a complainant’s rights in a mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Target Brands, Inc. v. jennifer beyer, FA 1738027 (Forum July 31, 2017) ("Complainant has rights in its TARGET service mark for purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) by virtue of its registration of the mark with a national trademark authority, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”).).
The Panel finds that each of the Domain Names is confusingly similar to the JUUL mark as they each incorporate the entire mark while adding a descriptive term (“ecigs” or “vapes”) and a gTLD. Such changes are insufficient to distinguish a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). See also Morgan Stanley v. Eugene Sykorsky / private person, FA 1651901 (Forum Jan. 19, 2016) (concluding that the addition of a generic term and top level domain to a trademark is inconsequential under a Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) analysis).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names. In order for Complainant to succeed under this element, it must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Domain Names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Hanna-Barbera Prods., Inc. v. Entm’t Commentaries, FA 741828 (Forum Aug. 18, 2006) and AOL LLC v. Gerberg, FA 780200 (Forum Sept. 25, 2006) (“Complainant must first make a prima facie showing that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interest in the subject domain names, which burden is light. If Complainant satisfies its burden, then the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the subject domain names.”). The Panel holds that Complainant has made out a prima facie case.
Complainant asserts that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Names as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names, nor has Complainant authorized Respondent to use the JUUL mark. Respondent has no relationship, affiliation, connection, endorsement or association with Complainant. WHOIS information can help support a finding that a respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, especially where a privacy service has been engaged. 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)); see also Kohler Co. v. Privacy Service, FA1505001621573 (Forum July 2, 2015) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) where “Privacy Service” was listed as the registrant of the disputed domain name). The WHOIS lists “fadi kasto” as the registrant of record. Coupled with Complainant’s unrebutted assertions as to absence of any affiliation or authorization between the parties, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Names in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Names presently resolve to websites featuring pay-per-click links to third party websites, some of which purport to offer competing goods to Complainant. Prior to the commencement of the proceeding, the Domain Names resolved a website operated by a direct competitor to Complainant. In either case such use is not indicative of rights or legitimate interests per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (”Respondent’s use of <edcorlando.xyz> also does not qualify as a bona fide offering… the <edcorlando.xyz> domain name resolves to a site containing pay-per-click hyperlinks and advertisements… Since these kinds of advertisements generate revenue for the holder of a domain name, they cannot be noncommercial; further, they do not qualify as a bona fide offering.”); see also Vance Int’l, Inc. v. Abend, FA 970871 (Forum June 8, 2007) (concluding that the operation of a pay-per-click website at a confusingly similar domain name does not represent a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, regardless of whether or not the links resolve to competing or unrelated websites or if the respondent is itself commercially profiting from the click-through fees); see also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (“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).”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds on the balance of probabilities that, at the time of registration of the Domain Names, August 26, 2016, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s JUUL mark. Each of the Domain Names resolves to a website that contains pay-per-click links that either directly refer to Complainant or are in respect of electronic cigarettes, the Complainant’s business. Furthermore it is improbable that a party would register two domain names that incorporate Complainant’s JUUL mark in the absence of any awareness of this mark. In the absence of rights or legitimate interests of its own this demonstrates registration in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the Domain Names in bad faith to create confusion with Complainant’s JUUL Mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Names to resolve to websites containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain. Use of a confusingly similar domain name to redirect Internet users to a website containing advertisements and links to third party websites for commercial gain is indicative of bad faith registration and use per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Danbyg Ejendomme A/S v. lb Hansen / guerciotti, FA1504001613867 (Forum June 2, 2015) (finding that the respondent registered and used the domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where the disputed domain name resolved to a website that offered both competing hyperlinks and hyperlinks unrelated to the complainant’s business); see also Tumblr, Inc. v. Ailing Liu, FA1402001543807 (Forum Mar. 24, 2014) (“Bad faith use and registration exists under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) where a respondent uses a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a website featuring links and advertisements unrelated to complainant’s business and respondent is likely collecting fees.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 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 <juulecigs.com> and <juulvapes.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: February 12, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page