JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Faruk Pazarlama
Claim Number: FA2002001884222
Complainant is JUUL Labs, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Susanna P. Lichter of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, United States. Respondent is Faruk Pazarlama (“Respondent”), Turkey.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <juultr.net>, registered with Name.com, Inc..
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 February 21, 2020; the Forum received payment on February 21, 2020.
On February 24, 2020, Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <juultr.net> domain name is registered with Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Name.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Name.com, Inc. 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 February 24, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 16, 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@juultr.net. Also on February 24, 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 March 18, 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 a leading producer of vaporizers and pods. 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, with sales increasing to 3.5 million units sold in February 2018 alone. Perhaps even more impressive, Complainant’s retail sales generated more than $77 million in revenue (Nielsen retail sales data) in February 2018. Complainant posted more than $1 billion in revenue in 2018. In 2018, Complainant sold 16.2 million devices. As of the end of 2018, Complainant’s JUUL mark represented approximately 75% of the US e-cigarette market share and Complainant launched in an additional eight country markets in 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 mark exclusively with Complainant and therefore Complainant maintains trademark registrations and applications all over the world for its JUUL-related marks. Complainant asserts rights in the JUUL mark based on its registration of the mark in the United States in 2015.
Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its JUUL mark as it includes the mark in its entirety, merely adding the geographic term “tr” (abbreviation for Turkey), and the “.net” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”).
According to Complainant, Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not authorized to use Complainant’s mark and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Instead, the disputed domain name resolves to a page where Respondent passes off as Complainant and sells unauthorized products and products competing with Complainant.
Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Specifically, Respondent diverts Internet users looking for Complainant to its own webpage and sells unauthorized and competing products. Further, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the JUUL mark prior to its registration of the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant has registered trademark rights for the mark JUUL and uses it to market vaporizers. The mark was registered in 2015.
Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark.
The disputed domain name was registered in 2019.
The resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo and offers for sale unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products as well as competing products.
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 disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s JUUL nark in its entirety, merely adding the geographic term “tr” (the country abbreviation for Turkey) and the “.net” gTLD. Addition of a geographic term with a gTLD is not sufficient to distinguish a domain name for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See InfoSpace, Inc. v. domains Asia Ventures, FA 198909 (Forum Nov. 10, 2003) (“Internet users may believe that the website located at the <dogpileuk.com> domain name is run by a United Kingdom branch or affiliate of Complainant. . . . Consequently, the Panel finds that the geographic identifier “uk” does not significantly distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).”); see also Verragio, LTD. v. Lance Liao, FA 1445159 (Forum July 5, 2012) (“Respondent’s <verragio.net> domain name is identical to Complainant’s VERRAGIO mark, since Respondent has merely added the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) ‘.net.’”). The Panel therefore finds that the <juultr.net> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JUUL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Respondent is not a licensee or otherwise authorized to use Complainant’s JUUL mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: where a response is absent, WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). Here, the WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as “Faruk Pazarlama.” Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The disputed domain name resolves to a website where Respondent passes off as Complainant and sells unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products as well as competing products. The resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo. Using a domain name to pass off as a complainant in order to offer competing products or services does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use per Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Dell Inc. v. Devesh Tyagi, FA 1785301 (Forum June 2, 2018) (“Respondent replicates Complainant’s website and displays Complainant’s products. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) & (iii).”); see also Wolverine World Wide, Inc. v. Fergus Knox, FA 1627751 (Forum Aug. 19, 2015) (finding no bona fide offering of goods or legitimate noncommercial or fair use existed where Respondent used the resolving website to sell products branded with Complainant’s MERRELL mark, and were either counterfeit products or legitimate products of Complainant being resold without authorization); see also Gumwand Inc. v. jared brading, FA1794058 (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…”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent’s use of the disputed domain 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). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
Indeed, as already noted, Respondent commercially benefits from the confusion created by its use of Complainant’s JUUL mark. Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer products in competition with Complainant is evidence of bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv); see Artistic Pursuit LLC v. calcuttawebdevelopers.com, FA 894477 (Forum Mar. 8, 2007) (finding that the respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name, which displayed a website virtually identical to the complainant’s website, constituted bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also Fanuc Ltd v. Mach. Control Servs., FA 93667 (Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark by using a domain name identical to the complainant’s mark to sell the complainant’s products); see also Am. Online, Inc. v. Fu, D2000-1374 (WIPO Dec. 11, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by displaying the complainant’s mark on its website and offering identical services as those offered by the complainant) See Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website); see also Classic Metal Roofs, LLC v. Interlock Indus., Ltd., FA 724554 (Forum Aug. 1, 2006) (finding that the respondent registered and used the <classicmetalroofing.com> domain name in bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii) by redirecting Internet users to the respondent’s competing website); see also Univ. of Texas Sys. v. Smith, FA 1195696 (Forum July 7, 2008) (finding that using the resolving website to divert Internet users to the complainant’s competitors constituted bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii)); see also DatingDirect.com Ltd. v. Aston, FA 593977 (Forum Dec. 28, 2005) (“Respondent is appropriating Complainant’s mark to divert Complainant’s customers to Respondent’s competing business. The Panel finds this diversion is evidence of bad faith registration and use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv).
Further, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website displays Complainant’s mark and logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also 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.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under 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 <juultr.net> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Richard Hill, Panelist
Dated: March 18, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page