JUUL Labs, Inc. v. hause Corona
Claim Number: FA2003001887103
Complainant is JUUL Labs, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Susanna P. Lichter of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, California, USA. Respondent is hause Corona (“Respondent”), California, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <juulpodsflavors.com>, registered with NameSilo, LLC.
The undersigned certifies that she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on March 5, 2020; the Forum received payment on March 5, 2020.
On March 6, 2020, NameSilo, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <juulpodsflavors.com> domain name is registered with NameSilo, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameSilo, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameSilo, LLC 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, 2020, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 30, 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 firstname.lastname@example.org. Also on March 9, 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 April 1, 2020, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin 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.
1. Respondent’s <juulpodsflavors.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JUUL mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <juulpodsflavors.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and uses the <juulpodsflavors.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to file a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, JUUL Labs, Inc., is in the business of selling vaporizer devices and accessories. Complainant holds a registration for the JUUL mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (Reg. No. 4,818,664, registered Sep. 22, 2015). Complainant also has common law rights in the JUUL PODS mark.
Respondent registered the <juulpodsflavors.com> domain name on February 18, 2020, and uses it to attract Internet users to its competing website featuring unauthorized 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 Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the JUUL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i) based upon its registration with the USPTO. See DIRECTV, LLC v. The Pearline Group, FA 1818749 (Forum Dec. 30, 2018) (“Complainant’s ownership of a USPTO registration for DIRECTV demonstrate its rights in such mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”).
Complainant also claims common law rights in the JUULPODS mark for the purposes of Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Common law rights are typically established by showing that a secondary meaning in the mark has been created in the minds of the public. See AOL LLC v. DiMarco, FA 1275978 (Forum Sept. 9, 2009) (“‘Secondary meaning’ is acquired when ‘in the minds of the public, the primary significance of a product feature . . . is to identify the source of the product rather than the product itself.’”). Complainant has used the JUUL marks to promote its vaporizer business since as early as April 2015. Complainant frequently displays the JUUL marks, including JUULPODS, throughout its website and on the boxes for its products. As a result of substantial consumer enthusiasm for JUUL products, Complainant has garnered a great deal of publicity, including in Men’s Fitness, Business Insider, Forbes, The New Yorker, The New York Times, Wired, TIME, and many others. Secondary meaning can also be established by evidence of a complainant’s sales figures, expenditures, and any other evidence indicating popularity in the mark as related to the complainant. See Gourmet Depot v. DI S.A., FA 1378760 (Forum June 21, 2011) (“Relevant evidence of secondary meaning includes length and amount of sales under the mark, the nature and extent of advertising, consumer surveys and media recognition.”). Complainant claims its JUUL-branded vaporizers and pods have been growing in popularity. Complainant provides Nielsen retail sales data showing that JUUL generated more than $1 million in monthly retail sales in January 2016 and this figure rapidly increased to $77 million in retail sales for February 2018. Complainant posted more than $1 billion in revenue in 2018. As of the end of 2018, Complainant controlled approximately 75% of the US e-cigarette market share. The Panel finds that Complainant has established common law rights by showing the JUULPODS mark has taken on a secondary meaning in association with Complainant’s business.
Respondent’s <juulpodsflavors.com> domain name wholly incorporates Complainant’s JUUL and JUULPODS marks, simply adding the generic term “flavors” along with the “.com” gTLD. The addition of generic terms and a gTLD does not mitigate the confusing similarity between a domain name and a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See Wiluna Holdings, LLC v. Edna Sherman, FA 1652781 (Forum Jan. 22, 2016) (Finding the addition of a generic term and gTLD is insufficient in distinguishing a disputed domain name from a mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).). Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent’s <juulpodsflavors.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JUUL and JUULPOD marks.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Once Complainant makes a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also 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 has no rights or legitimate interests in the <juulpodsflavors.com> domain name because Respondent is not licensed or permitted to use Complainant’s JUUL or JUULPODS marks and is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. The WHOIS information of record lists “hause Corona” as the registrant of the disputed domain name. Thus, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name, and thus has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC, v. ilyas Aslan / uok / Domain Admin ContactID 5645550 / FBS INC / Whoisprotection biz, FA 1785313 (Forum June 25, 2018) (“The publicly available WHOIS information identifies Respondent as ‘Ilyas Aslan’ and so there is no prima facie evidence that Respondent might be commonly known by either of the [<harleybot.bid> and <harleybot.com>] domain names.”); see also Navistar International Corporation v. N Rahmany, FA1505001620789 (Forum June 8, 2015) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name where the complainant had never authorized the respondent to incorporate its NAVISTAR mark in any domain name registration).
Complainant claims that Respondent does not use the disputed domain for a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use and instead uses the domain to divert users to a misleading website that promotes competing products. The use of a confusingly similar domain name to sell counterfeit or competing products is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See eLuxury.com Inc. v. WangJunJie, FA 1075554 (Forum Nov. 30, 2007) (concluding that the sale of counterfeit products is evidence that the respondent does not make a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a disputed domain name); see also Florists’ Transworld Delivery v. Malek, FA 676433 (Forum June 6, 2006) (holding that the respondent’s use of the <ftdflowers4less.com> domain name to sell flowers in competition with the complainant did not give rise to any legitimate interest in the domain name). Complainant provides screenshots of Respondent’s website which displays Complainant’s marks and pictures of products that are purportedly compatible with Complainant’s goods. The Panel finds that this use is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, and thus Respondent has no rights under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
Complainant demonstrates that Respondent registered and uses the <juulpodsflavors.com> domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business through the promotion of competing products. The use of a disputed domain name to promote competing products is evidence of bad faith disruption under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii). See H-D U.S.A., LLC v. Linchunming / linchunming, FA1411001589214 (Forum Dec. 22, 2014) (“As mentioned above, Respondent uses the domain name to promote counterfeit goods like those offered by Complainant. Doing so disrupts Complainant’s business and demonstrates Respondent’s bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).”). Accordingly, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iii).
Complainant further argues that Respondent registered and uses the <juulpodsflavors.com> domain name in bad faith by attracting Internet users to its competing website for commercial gain through the sale of unauthorized products. The use of a disputed domain name to divert Internet users to a website for the sale of counterfeit and competing products is bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See H-D Michigan, LLC v. Ross, FA 1250712 (Forum Apr. 23, 2009) (determining that the respondent’s selling of counterfeit products creates the likelihood of confusion as to the complainant’s affiliation with the disputed domain name and allows the respondent to profit from that confusion and thus demonstrates bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv)). The Panel again notes Respondent’s website and the display of Complainant’s marks and competing products. Thus, the Panel finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv).
Complainant argues that Respondent’s knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the JUUL marks is clear from the content used on Respondent’s website. The Panel agrees and finds bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Am. Online, Inc. v. Miles, FA 105890 (Forum May 31, 2002) (“Respondent is using the domain name at issue to resolve to a website at which Complainant’s trademarks and logos are prominently displayed. Respondent has done this with full knowledge of Complainant’s business and trademarks. The Panel finds that this conduct is that which is prohibited [under] the Policy.”)
The Panel finds that 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 <juulpodsflavors.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 2, 2020
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page