JUUL Labs, Inc. v. DFBG COMERCIO LTDS
Claim Number: FA2303002034340
Complainant is JUUL Labs, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is DFBG COMERCIO LTDS (“Respondent”), Brazil.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <bejuul.com> (“Domain Name”), registered with Instra Corporation Pty Ltd..
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 Forum electronically on March 3, 2023; Forum received payment on March 3, 2023.
On March 6, 2023, Instra Corporation Pty Ltd. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <bejuul.com> domain name is registered with Instra Corporation Pty Ltd. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Instra Corporation Pty Ltd. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Instra Corporation Pty Ltd. 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 March 9, 2023, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 29, 2023 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@bejuul.com. Also on March 9, 2023, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On April 5, 2023, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Nicholas J.T. Smith as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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, JUUL Labs, Inc. uses the JUUL mark in connection with vaporizers and vaporizer accessories. Complainant asserts rights in JUUL mark based upon registration with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g. Reg. No. 4,818,664, registered September 22, 2015). The <bejuul.com> domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Marks because the Domain Name wholly incorporates the JUUL mark, adding only the generic 2-letter word “be” as well as the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com”.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by the <bejuul.com> domain name. Respondent is not using the Domain Name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods and services or for any legitimate or fair use. Rather, Respondent is passing off as Complainant and offering competing and unauthorized products.
Respondent registered and uses the <bejuul.com> domain name in bad faith. Respondent attempts to disrupt Complainant’s business and attract, for commercial gain, users to the Domain Name where it offers to sell competing and unauthorized versions of Complainant’s goods. Given the content of the website accessible at the Domain Name, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the JUUL mark prior to registration of the Domain Name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant holds trademark rights for the JUUL mark. The Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JUUL mark. Complainant has established that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the use of the Domain Name and that Respondent registered and has used the Domain Name 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 under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) through its 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 is sufficient to establish rights in that mark. See Vanguard Trademark Holdings USA LLC v. Wang Liqun, FA 1625332 (Forum July 17, 2015) (finding, “Registration of a mark with a governmental authority (or, in this case, multiple governmental authorities) is sufficient to establish rights in the mark for purposes of Policy ¶4(a)(i)”).
The Panel finds that the <bejuul.com> Domain Name is confusingly similar to the JUUL mark as it fully incorporates the JUUL mark adding only the generic term “be” and the “.com” gTLD. Domain names which incorporate an entire mark are usually considered confusingly similar, while adding generic words and a gTLD is generally insufficient to create a distinction between a complainant’s mark and a disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See MTD Products Inc v J Randall Shank, FA 1783050 (Forum June 27, 2018) (“The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the CUB CADET mark before appending the generic terms ‘genuine’ and ‘parts’ as well as the ‘.com’ gTLD.”); see also Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) (“Where a relevant trademark is recognisable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element.”).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant alleges that Respondent holds no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. 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 Name 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 Name as Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, 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 “DFBG COMERCIO LTDS” as 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 Name in accordance with Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
The Domain Name is presently inactive but Complainant provides uncontested evidence that prior to the commencement of the proceeding the Domain Name resolved to a website that passed off as an official website of the Complainant (through the reproduction of Complainant’s name, provision of images of Complainant’s products and absence of a disclaimer) for the purpose of selling vaporizer products under the JUUL mark in direct competition with Complainant’s vaporizer products. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to resolve to a webpage that offers goods or services that compete with a complainant does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; indeed it provides a false impression that the Respondent is affiliated with or authorized by Complainant. See Upwork Global Inc. v. Shoaib Malik, FA 1654759 (Forum February 3, 2016) (finding that Complainant provides freelance talent services, and that Respondent competes with Complainant by promoting freelance talent services through the disputed domain’s resolving webpage, which is neither a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor is it a legitimate noncommercial or fair use). See also General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “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 that, at the time of registration of the Domain Name, September 13, 2022, Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s JUUL mark since the Respondent has impersonated the Complainant on its website and offers goods in direct competition with Complainant. 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 Name in bad faith under Policy ¶4(b)(iv) to create confusion with Complainant’s JUUL Mark for commercial gain by using the confusingly similar Domain Name to resolve to a website offering unauthorized versions of Complainant’s products and goods in competition with Complainant’s products. Using a confusingly similar domain name to pass off as a complainant and offer competing and unauthorized products can demonstrate bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy / Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) (finding bad faith per Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv) where the respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website upon which the respondent passes off as the complainant and offers online cryptocurrency services in direct competition with the complainant’s business); see also Citadel LLC and its related entity, KCG IP Holdings, LLC v. Joel Lespinasse / Radius Group, FA1409001579141 (Forum Oct. 15, 2014) (“Here, the Panel finds evidence of Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) bad faith as Respondent has used the confusingly similar domain name to promote its own financial management and consulting services in competition with Complainant.”).
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 <bejuul.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Nicholas J.T. Smith, Panelist
Dated: April 6, 2023
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page