DECISION

 

R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Fernando Delira

Claim Number: FA2604002215775

 

PARTIES

Complainant is R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Crystal Genteman, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Fernando Delira ("Respondent"), Texas, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <vusevapeofficial.com>, registered with NameCheap, Inc.

 

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.

 

Alan L. Limbury, as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainants submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on April 14, 2026. Forum received payment on April 14, 2026.

 

On April 15, 2026, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <vusevapeofficial.com> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, 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 April 15, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 5, 2026 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@vusevapeofficial.com. Also on April 15, 2026, 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 May 6, 2026, pursuant to Complainants' request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Alan L. Limbury 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.

 

RELIEF SOUGHT

Complainants request that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainants.

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

In the instant proceedings, there are two Complainants. Paragraph 3(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") provides that "[a]ny person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a domain name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." 

 

Complainants have shown that they are affiliated companies within the same corporate group and that each has rights in the VUSE trademark. These circumstances constitute a sufficient nexus or link such that each may claim to have rights to the <vusevapeofficial.com> domain name listed in the Complaint.

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainants

Complainants are engaged in the manufacture, distribution and sale of tobacco and nicotine products (including electronic cigarettes, pods, and cartridges filled with e-liquid) and accessories and related products. In 2013, Complainants launched the world's first fully digital vapor cigarette under the name and mark VUSE. Their official website is at "www.vusevapor.com".

 

The <vusevapeofficial.com> domain name is identical and/or confusingly similar to Complainant's VUSE marks.

 

Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the <vusevapeofficial.com> domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name; does not have authorization to use the VUSE marks; is not authorized to sell VUSE products; and is not using the domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services nor making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Respondent uses the VUSE mark in the domain name and on the resolving website to create initial interest confusion with Complainants and then accept payment for products without sending products to consumers and/or sell the goods of Complainants' competitors for commercial gain. The website prominently features the VUSE marks, impersonates Complainants, purports to sell Complainants' products, and falsely claims to be an "official" VUSE site.

 

Respondent has registered and used the <vusevapeofficial.com> domain name in bad faith for commercial gain to benefit from the goodwill and reputation associated with Complainants' VUSE marks. The domain name incorporates Complainants' entire VUSE mark; suggests it is an "official" website of Complainant; and was registered by Respondent several years after Complainants began using the VUSE marks. Respondent also engaged in bad faith because by providing a fake contact address in connection with the registration of the domain name. Respondent's advertising of Complainants' products further confirms Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainants' marks.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

Complainants have established all the elements entitling them to relief.

 

DISCUSSION

Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and 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 a 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 the 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 Complainants' 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 3.1 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").

 

Identical and/or Confusingly Similar

Complainants have shown that they both have rights in the mark VUSE, including USPTO Registration No. 4,230,347, registered by Reynolds Innovations Inc. on October 23, 2012 for cigarettes, namely, electronic cigarettes, and USPTO Registration No. 7,075,535, registered by RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. on June 6, 2023 for inter alia holders for electronic cigarettes, both in International Class 34.

 

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, ¶ 1.7.

 

The Panel finds Respondent's <vusevapeofficial.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant's VUSE marks, only differing by the addition of the descriptive words "vape" and "official", which differences are insufficient to distinguish the domain name from Complainants' marks and instead evoke Complainants' business. The inconsequential ".com" generic top-level domain ("gTLD") may be ignored under this element. See Rollerblade, Inc. v. Chris McCrady, D2000-0429 (WIPO June 25, 2000).

 

Complainants have established this element.

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides 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 Respondent's rights or legitimate interests to a domain name for purposes of Paragraph 4(a)(ii):

 

(i)                      before any notice to Respondent of the dispute, the use by Respondent 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)                      Respondent (as an individual, business or other organization) has been commonly known by the domain name, even if Respondent has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

 

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

 

The <vusevapeofficial.com> domain name was registered on March 8, 2026, several years after the registration of Complainants' VUSE marks. It resolves to a website prominently displaying Complainants' VUSE marks and images copied from Complainants' website, and purports to offer Complainants' products for sale. Unlike Complainants' official website, Respondent's website does not require consumers to verify their age and offers products that are not sold in the United States. There is no disclaimer of any affiliation with either of Complainants.

 

These circumstances, together with Complainant's assertions, are sufficient to constitute a prima facie showing of absence of rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name on the part of Respondent. The evidentiary burden therefore shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests in the <vusevapeofficial.com> domain name. See JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Dryx Emerson / KMF Events LTD, FA 1849706 (Forum July 17, 2019). Respondent has made no attempt to do so.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name.

 

Complainants have established this element.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is expressed in the conjunctive: "the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith" and Paragraph 4(b) sets out four illustrative circumstances, which, though not exclusive, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), including:

 

(iv)                      by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your web site 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 your web site or location or of a product or service on your web site or location.

The circumstances set out above in relation to the second element satisfy the Panel that Respondent was fully aware of Complainants, their  VUSE marks and their official "www.vusevapor.com" website when Respondent registered the <vusevapeofficial.com> domain name and that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent's website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainants' marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website and of the products promoted on that website. This demonstrates registration and use in bad faith to attract users for commercial gain under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).

 

Complainants have established this element.

 

DECISION

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

 

Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <vusevapeofficial.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc.

 

 

 

Alan L. Limbury, Panelist

Dated: May 7, 2026