DECISION
R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Mason Jay / MasonJays
Claim Number: FA2607002235895
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 Mason Jay / MasonJays ("Respondent"), New York, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <vusevape-us.com>, registered with Tucows Domains Inc.
PANEL
The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Adam Taylor as Panelist.
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on July 29, 2026; Forum received payment on July 29, 2026.
On July 30, 2026, Tucows Domains Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <vusevape-us.com> domain name is registered with Tucows Domains Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Tucows Domains Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the Tucows Domains 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 August 6, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of August 26, 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@vusevape-us.com. Also on August 6, 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 27, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Adam Taylor 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.
PARTIES' CONTENTIONS
A. Complainant
Complainant contends that it has rights in the VUSE mark based upon registration of that mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and upon common law rights arising from long-standing continuous business use. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; on the contrary, Respondent has used the disputed domain name to impersonate, and create initial interest confusion with, Complainant and then accept payment for products without sending products to consumers and/or selling inauthentic products that could be dangerous to consumers' health. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Respondent has not made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. Complainant has never authorized Respondent to use Complainant's mark.
Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark is evidenced by Complainant's fame and Respondent's purported sale of Complainant's products. Respondent has used the disputed domain name to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark for commercial gain.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
FINDINGS
Complainant operates a website at www.vusevapor.com.
The disputed domain name was registered on May 4, 2026.
Respondent has used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website that was branded with Complainant's VUSE logo and purported to offer Complainant's products for sale, including use of copyrighted images from Complainant's website.
When viewed by the Panel, the disputed domain name did not resolve to an active website.
PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS
The Panel is satisfied that (a) Complainants have a specific common grievance against the Respondent and Respondent has engaged in common conduct that has affected Complainants in similar fashion, and (b) it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to allow this proceeding to be filed by both Complainants. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.11.
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 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
Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the VUSE mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant's distinctive VUSE mark and adds a hyphen plus the terms "vape" and "us". It is well established under the Policy that the incorporation of a recognizable complainant's mark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity, even when combined with additional terms. See Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable 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.")
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 Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests").
Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
As discussed under the third element below, the Panel considers that Respondent has used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse and profit from Internet users seeking Complainant's goods and/or services by impersonating Complainant. Such activity is plainly not bona fide. Nor does it qualify as legitimate noncommercial or fair use.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use, under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii).
WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark).
The WHOIS information for the disputed domain name lists the registrant as "Mason Jay / MasonJays" and there is no other information on the record indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii).
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Registration and Use in Bad Faith
The Panel considers that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to a website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
First, the disputed domain name consists of Complainant's distinctive mark plus "vape", a term that is highly relevant to Complainant's goods/services, together with "us", denoting Complainant's activities in the United States.
Second, Respondent has used the disputed domain name for a website that impersonates Complainant including by prominent use of Complainant's mark/logo and of Complainant's official product images as well as by purporting to offer Complainant's goods for sale, including products that are not available for purchase in the United States as well as products that Complainant has not offered for sale for several years. Furthermore, Respondent's website does not include any obvious age verification mechanism despite purporting to sell age-restricted products.
Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered, and is using, 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 <vusevape-us.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Adam Taylor, Panelist
Dated: September 9, 2026
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page