DECISION

 

R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Robert King

Claim Number: FA2607002232080

 

PARTIES

Complainant is R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Crystal Genteman of KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Robert King ("Respondent"), California, USA.

 

REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME

The domain name at issue is <officialvuse.com>, registered with Dynadot 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.

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. as Panelist.

 

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 10, 2026; Forum received payment on July 10, 2026.

 

On July 13, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <officialvuse.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot 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 July 17, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 6, 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@officialvuse.com. Also on July 17, 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 August 7, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq. 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

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

 

PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS

There are two Complainants in this matter, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. Complainants argue that they are affiliated companies within the same corporate group.

 

Relevant rules governing multiple complainants are UDRP Rule 3(a) and the Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e). UDRP Rule 3(a) states, "Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." The 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."

 

Previous panels have interpreted the Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party if they can show a sufficient link to each other. For example, in Vancouver Org. Comm. for the 2010 Olympic and Paralymic Games & Int'l Olympic Comm. v. Malik, FA 666119 (Forum May 12, 2006), the panel stated:

 

"It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities, such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership, or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity."

 

The Panel finds that evidence provided in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a requisite nexus or link between Complainants, and thus treats them as a single entity in this proceeding. Throughout this decision, Complainants will be collectively referred to as "Complainant."

 

PARTIES' CONTENTIONS

A. Complainant

i) Complainant, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, and its affiliate, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., are affiliated companies within the same corporate group. Complainant is and continuously has been engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of tobacco and nicotine products, as well as accessories and related products. In 2013, Complainant launched the world's first fully digital vapor cigarette under the name and mark VUSE. Since its launch, VUSE has enjoyed tremendous popularity and has become a leading brand in the vapor industry. Complainant has established rights in, inter alia, the VUSE word and design marks through its registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,230,347, registered October 23, 2012). The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark, as it incorporates the VUSE mark with only the addition of the generic or descriptive term "official" and the gTLD.

 

ii) Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Complainant authorized or licensed Respondent to use the VUSE mark in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not using the domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, the website at the disputed domain name prominently features the VUSE mark and uses Complainant's unauthorized copyrighted images to offer its products for purchase without authorization. Unlike Complainant's official website, the site lacks consumer age verification, and its nicotine warning statement fails to comply with federal law. Moreover, the website falsely lists a location of "Winston, Salem, North Carolina," where RAI is located, despite its terms and conditions stating the operator is based in the United Kingdom. On July 5, 2026, following Complainant's notice to the hosting provider, the infringing website was removed.

 

iii) Respondent used the disputed domain name to either impersonate Complainant or suggest an endorsement by, or connection to, Complainant, in order to attract users to its website and disrupt Complainant's business. Respondent has also engaged in bad faith because it provided inaccurate contact information in connection with the registration of the disputed domain name. Respondent's advertising of Complainant's products further confirms Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's marks, and evidences Respondent's intent to attract users to its website and disrupt Complainant's business. Complainant has identified four prior decisions ordering transfer and naming "Robert King," in San Francisco, CA, as Respondent, three of which were brought by Complainant in connection with other domain names incorporating VUSE.

 

B. Respondent

Respondent did not submit a Response in this proceeding.

 

FINDINGS

1. The disputed domain name was registered on January 2, 2026.

 

2. Complainant has demonstrated, inter alia, its rights in the VUSE word and design marks through its registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,230,347, registered October 23, 2012).

 

3. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant by: (i) prominently displaying the VUSE marks on the website, and (ii) reproducing unauthorized copies of Complainant's copyrighted images from Complainant's website and/or advertisements.

 

4. The website associated with the disputed domain name does not require that consumers verify their age to access the site. The nicotine warning statement does not comply with the requirements of federal law.

 

5. The website at the disputed domain name falsely lists a location of "Winston, Salem, North Carolina," which is where RAI is located; however, the terms and conditions on the website state that the operator is located in the United Kingdom with a registered office in London.

 

6. Following Complainant's enforcement efforts, the website at the disputed domain name was removed.

 

7. Complainant has identified four prior decisions ordering transfer and naming a "Robert King," in San Francisco, CA, as Respondent, three of which were brought by Complainant in connection with other domain names incorporating VUSE.

 

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 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 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

Complainant, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company, and its affiliate, RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., are affiliated companies within the same corporate group. Complainant demonstrates rights in, inter alia, the VUSE word and design marks through its registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 4,230,347, registered October 23, 2012). Registration with the USPTO is generally sufficient to establish rights in a mark. Since Complainant has submitted evidence of such registrations, and the Panel notes that the registrations are in the name of RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., the Panel finds that Complainant has established rights in the VUSE word and design marks under the Policy.

 

Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, <officialvuse.com>, is confusingly similar to Complainant's VUSE mark, as it fully incorporates the mark with only the addition of the generic or descriptive term "official," and the gTLD. The Panel agrees and finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).

 

Rights or Legitimate Interests

Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Section 2.1, WIPO Overview 3.1 ("Where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element.").

 

Complainant argues that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name as Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use Complainant's mark, and Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant. Relevant information, such as WHOIS information, can be used as evidence to show a respondent is or is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The Panel notes that the WHOIS data lists "Robert King" as the registrant, and there is no evidence in the record to suggest Respondent was authorized to use the mark. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).

 

Complainant argues that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, because Respondent attempts to pass itself off as Complainant. Impersonating Complainant on the website associated with the disputed domain name does not qualify as either a bona fide offering of goods or services, or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under the UDRP Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See Am. Int'l Group, Inc. v. Busby, FA 156251 (Forum May 30, 2003) (finding that the respondent attempts to pass itself off as the complainant online, which is blatant unauthorized use of the complainant's mark and is evidence that the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name).

 

Complainant has submitted a screenshot of the website resolving from the disputed domain name, which mimics Complainant's proprietary website by: (i) prominently displaying the VUSE marks on the website, and (ii) utilizing unauthorized copies of Complainant's copyrighted images from its website and/or advertisements.

 

The Panel further notes that the website associated with the disputed domain name does not require that consumers verify their age to access the site. The nicotine warning statement does not comply with the requirements of federal law. The website at the disputed domain name falsely lists a location of "Winston, Salem, North Carolina," which is where RAI is located; however, the terms and conditions on the website state that the operator is located in the United Kingdom with a registered office in London. Following Complainant's enforcement efforts, the website at the disputed domain name was removed.

 

The Panel finds that Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, or for any legitimate noncommercial or fair use, as Respondent utilizes the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant and sell unauthorized VUSE products for commercial gain illegally.

 

The Panel finds that Complainant has established a prima facie case based on the considerations above. Since Respondent has not filed a response or attempted to rebut the prima facie case against it, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

 

Registration and Use in Bad Faith

Complainant argues that Respondent used the disputed domain name to either impersonate Complainant or suggest an endorsement by, or connection to, Complainant, in order to attract users to its website and disrupt Complainant's business. The Panel observes that capitalizing on the confusing similarity of a domain name to exploit the valuable goodwill of a protected mark and to mislead Internet users as to the source of the domain name is evidence of bad faith pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See Am. Univ. v. Cook, FA 208629 (Forum Dec. 22, 2003) ("Registration and use of a domain name that incorporates another's mark with the intent to deceive Internet users in regard to the source or affiliation of the domain name is evidence of bad faith."). Further, the use of the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant demonstrates Respondent's bad faith registration and use. See Insomniac Holdings, LLC v. Mark Daniels, FA 1735969 (Forum July 15, 2017) (refusing to find rights and legitimate interests in a domain name on the part of a respondent when the disputed domain name "resolves to a website that Respondent has designed to mimic Complainant's own in an attempt to pass itself off as Complainant.").

 

As noted above, Respondent uses the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant by: (i) prominently displaying the VUSE marks on the website, and (ii) reproducing unauthorized copies of Complainant's copyrighted images from Complainant's website and/or advertisements. The website associated with the disputed domain name does not require that consumers verify their age to access the site. The nicotine warning statement does not comply with the requirements of federal law. The website at the disputed domain name falsely lists a location of "Winston, Salem, North Carolina," which is where RAI is located; however, the terms and conditions on the website state that the operator is located in the United Kingdom with a registered office in London.

 

The Panel finds that such use of the disputed domain name is nothing more than an attempt in bad faith to exploit Complainant's goodwill and reputation for Respondent's commercial gain, thereby disrupting Complainant's business. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith pursuant to the Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) & (iv).

 

Complainant contends that Respondent's advertising of Complainant's products further confirms Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's marks. In light of the notoriety of Complainant's mark, Respondent's manner of use of the disputed domain name to impersonate Complainant, and the fact that Respondent is engaged in a pattern of targeting Complainant, as shown in three prior decisions ordering transfer and naming Respondent in connection with domain names incorporating VUSE, the Panel infers that Respondent was aware of Complainant's rights in the mark at the time of registration. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).

 

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 <officialvuse.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.

 

 

 

Ho-Hyun Nahm, Esq., Panelist

Dated: August 7, 2026