DECISION

 

JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Metin ADANIR

Claim Number: FA2001001878740

 

PARTIES

Complainant is JUUL Labs, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Aaron D. Hendelman of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, US.  Respondent is Metin ADANIR (“Respondent”), Turkey.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES

The domain names at issue are <juultürkiye.com> and <juullabs.xyz>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC.

 

PANEL

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.

 

Debrett G. Lyons as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on January 13, 2020; the Forum received payment on January 13, 2020.

 

On January 14, 2020, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <juultürkiye.com> and <juullabs.xyz> 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@juultürkiye.com, postmaster@juullabs.xyz.  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 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 Debrett G. Lyons 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainant requests that the domain names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

Complainant asserts trademark rights JUUL and alleges that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its trademark. 

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.

 

Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

The factual findings pertinent to the decision in this case are that:

 

1.    Complainant manufactures and sells nicotine vaporizers by reference to the trademark JUUL which is the subject of United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) Reg. No. 4,818,664, registered September 22, 2015;

2.    the domain name <juultürkiye.com> was registered on June 4, 2018 and the <juullabs.xyz> domain name on March 5, 2019;

3.    the domain names resolve to websites which prominently use Complainant’s trademark, show images of products in the nature of those made by Complainant under the trademark presented in a fashion mimicking Complainant’s official website, and offers those goods for sale; and

4.    there is no commercial agreement between the parties and Complainant has not authorized Respondent to use its trademark or to register any domain name incorporating its trademark.

 

DISCUSSION

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 based on 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.[i]

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy requires a two-fold enquiry—a threshold investigation into whether a complainant has rights in a trademark, followed by an assessment of whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that trademark.

 

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy does not distinguish between registered and unregistered trademark rights.  It is well established by decisions under this Policy that a trademark registered with a national authority is evidence of trademark rights.[ii]  Complainant provides evidence of a USPTO registration for the trademark and so the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the trademark.

 

The domain names take the trademark and add non-distinctive matter in the form of gTLDs, together with either the country name, “türkiye”, or the term “labs”, being part of Complainant’s name.  The Panel finds the disputed domain names to be confusingly similar to the trademark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.[iii] 

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be proved, based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy:

 

(i)            before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;  or

 

(ii)          you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

(iii)         you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

 

Complainant need only make out a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, after which the onus shifts to Respondent to rebut that case by demonstrating those rights or interests.[iv]

 

The publicly available WHOIS information for the domain names does not provide any prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain names.  Complainant provides screenshots of the resolving webpages which both mimic Complainant’s website.  Complainant states that the goods for sale there are “unauthorized”.  That is not to say that the goods are counterfeit but there is no evidence that Respondent has any trademark rights and Complainant states that it has not given Respondent permission to use the trademark for any purpose. 

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names.[v]  The onus shifts to Respondent to establish a legitimate interest and, absent a Response, that prima facie case is not rebutted and the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or interests and so finds that Complainant has satisfied this second limb of the Policy.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant must prove on the balance of probabilities both that the disputed domain names were registered and used in bad faith. 

 

Guidance is found in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy which sets out four circumstances, any one of which is taken to be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith if established.

 

The four specified circumstances are:

 

(i)            circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or

 

(ii)          the respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

 

(iii)         the respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

 

(iv)         by using the domain name, respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the site or location.

 

The Panel finds that paragraph 4(b)(iv) has direct application.  Clearly the resolving websites exist for commercial gain.  The Panel has already found the compared terms to be confusingly similar.  In terms of how the Policy has been applied, the Panel finds that Respondent intended to create the requisite confusion described by paragraph 4(b)(iv).[vi] 

 

The Panel finds registration and use in bad faith and so finds that Complainant has satisfied the third and final element of the Policy.

 

DECISION

Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <juultürkiye.com> and <juullabs.xyz> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

Debrett G. Lyons, Panelist

Date: February 12, 2020

 



[i] See, for example, Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum Jul. 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; 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.”)

[ii] See, for example, State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Periasami Malain, FA 705262 (Forum Jun. 19, 2006) (“Complainant’s registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office of the trademark, STATE FARM, establishes its rights in the STATE FARM mark pursuant to Policy, paragraph 4(a)(i).”)

[iii]  See, for example, 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.”); Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).

[iv] See, for example, Do The Hustle, LLC v. Tropic Web, D2000‑0624 (WIPO Aug. 21, 2000).

[v] See, for example, Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) finding the respondent did not use the domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services per Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where the website resolving from the disputed domain name featured the complainant’s mark and various photographs related to the complainant’s business.

[vi] See, for example, Xylem Inc. and Xylem IP Holdings LLC v. YinSi BaoHu YiKaiQi, FA1504001612750 (Forum May 13, 2015) (“The Panel agrees that Respondent’s use of the website to display products similar to Complainant’s, imputes intent to attract Internet users for commercial gain, and finds bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).”).

 

 

 

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page