Westmore · UDRP DecisionBlucigcoupons.org
The Panel ordered transfer of <blucigcoupons.org>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s BLU ECIGS and BLU CIGS marks because it made minor letter changes and added the generic term “coupons.” The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests, and the domain was registered and used in bad faith through a commercial website containing links to coupons promoting electronic cigarettes from other manufacturers.
The timeline behind blucigcoupons.org
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
This decision illustrates a straightforward trademark-plus-commercial-term case in which minor spelling changes and the addition of “coupons” did not avoid confusing similarity. The competitive coupon links were central to the findings on legitimate interests and bad faith, particularly because the Respondent offered no rebuttal or alternative explanation.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Lorillard Technologies, Inc. v. Garreth Dickson, WOOT Marketing, LLC Case No. D2013-2183 1. The Parties The Complainant is Lorillard Technologies, Inc. of North Carolina, United States of America, represented by DLA Piper US LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is Garreth Dickson, WOOT Marketing, LLC of Salt Lake City, Utah, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <blucigcoupons.org> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 17, 2013. On December 17, 2013, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 18, 2013, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing the actual registrant. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 23, 2014 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on December 26, 2013. The Center verified that the amended Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on January 8, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was January 28, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 30, 2014. The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on February 24, 2014. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainant owns the trademarks BLU ECIGS and BLU CIGS (collectively, the “Blu Cigs Marks”), which are variously registered in the United States, Canada, Australia, Benelux, Japan, Republic of Korea, Portugal, Spain, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, and Denmark for tobacco substitute products. The Complainant first began using the Blu Cigs Marks in 2009 and since then has continuously and actively promoted the sale of electronic cigarettes in connection with the Marks. The Complainant first obtained the registration of the mark BLU ECIGS with the United States Patent and Trademark Office in 2010. That registration was followed by other national trademark registrations. The disputed domain name was created on September 9, 2013. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith to attract unsuspecting consumers to the Respondent’s website that features hyperlinks directing consumers to competitive products. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Blu Cig Marks. The disputed domain name modifies the Complainant’s Blu Cig Marks by merely dropping an “s” or an “e” and adding the generic term “coupons.” Trivial misspellings, adding or deleting letters, and adding generic terms as prefixes or suffixes to established trademarks owned by others when registering a domain name is insufficient to avoid findings of confusing similarity. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel finds that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name for the following reasons and based on the Panel’s findings under the third element: The Complainant has not licensed the Blu Cigs Marks to the Respondent; there is no evidence of prior or good faith use by the Respondent of the Blu Cigs Marks or disputed domain name, the Respondent has failed to answer the amended Complaint, the Respondent has not attempted to register the disputed domain name or any of its components, as a trademark and the disputed domain name is being utilized for commercial purposes. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant’s Blu Cig Marks are registered with numerous national authorities and have been used continuously by the Complainant since 2010. An Internet or industry search by the Respondent would have disclosed the Complainant’s Blu Cig Marks. Moreover, the Respondent’s website features hyperlinks to coupons promoting the sale of electronic cigarettes by other manufacturers. The Respondent appears to have chosen the disputed domain name because of its confusing similarity to the Blu Cig Marks. The Panel finds, on this record, that the Respondent has “intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users […] by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement […]” in violation of the Policy, paragraph 4(b). 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <blucigcoupons.org> be transferred to the Complainant. William F. Hamilton Sole Panelist Date: March 9, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around blucigcoupons.org
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.