Vusevapes.com

The timeline behind vusevapes.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Nicoventures Holdings Limited v. HostBlast.net Case No. D2025-1932 1. The Parties The Complainant is Nicoventures Holdings Limited, United Kingdom, represented by Demys Limited, United Kingdom. The Respondent is HostBlast.net, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <vusevapes.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 14, 2025. On May 14, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On May 14, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response, disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Domain Administrator, PrivacyGuardian.org llc) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 15, 2025, 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 May 19, 2025. The Center verified that the Complaint together with 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on May 23, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 12, 2025. The Respondent did not submit a formal response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 20, 2025. The Center received email communications sent from an email address associated with the disputed domain name on June 20, 2025, and June 23, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Ganna Prokhorova as the sole panelist in this matter on June 26, 2025. 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 is part of the British American Tobacco (“BAT”) group of companies. BAT is a global consumer goods company headquartered in London, United Kingdom, with a product portfolio including vapour, heated tobacco, modern oral, traditional oral, and combustible cigarettes. The Complainant serves as BAT’s investment holding company for new products and is the holder of intellectual property rights in relation to the VUSE brand. The Complainant owns a portfolio of trademark registrations for VUSE across various jurisdictions, including Australia, Canada, European Union, and the United Kingdom, with the earliest registration dating from 2012, e.g., European Union Trade Mark registration no. 010885994, registered on November 27, 2012. The Complainant operates its VUSE brand through regional websites, with Internet users redirected via its central domain name <vuse.com>. The disputed domain name was registered on February 14, 2024. It resolves to an active website that offers what appear to be the Complainant’s products, alongside unrelated third-party goods, including cannabis products. The website features the Complainant’s VUSE mark and includes imagery sourced from the Complainant’s official regional VUSE website without authorization. The Complainant attempted to resolve the matter amicably via the WhoIs privacy provider on April 14, 2025, but received no reply. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant contends that: (i) the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered VUSE trademarks, incorporating the mark in its entirety together with the term “vapes”, which is closely related to the Complainant’s goods; (ii) the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not known by the disputed domain name, has no trademark rights in “VUSE”, and is not an authorized reseller or distributor of the Complainant’s products. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent’s use does not qualify as nominative fair use under the Oki Data test, nor does it amount to a bona fide offering of goods or services; (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant argues that the Respondent intentionally registered the disputed domain name with knowledge of the Complainant’s VUSE marks and has sought to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion. The use of the Complainant’s branding, marketing content, and trademarks, without a disclaimer, supports a finding of bad faith. The Complainant further notes the offering of counterfeit, parallel import or grey market goods and unrelated third-party products, including cannabis, as further evidence of bad faith. page 3 The Complainant asks the disputed domain name to be transferred. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The Center received email communications sent from an email address associated with the disputed domain name on June 20, 2025, and June 23, 2025, in which the sender was asking about the grounds of the dispute. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel is to decide the Complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, the Rules, and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. The onus is on the Complainant to make out its case and it is apparent, both from the terms of the Policy and the decisions of past UDRP panels, that the Complainant must show that all three elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been established before any order can be made to transfer the disputed domain name. In UDRP cases, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. To succeed in a UDRP complaint, the Complainant has to demonstrate that all the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent had 20 days to submit a response in accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules and failed to submit a substantive response, although the Center received two informal email communications referred to above sent from an email address associated with the disputed domain name. Paragraph 5(f) of the Rules establishes that if a respondent does not respond to the complaint, the panel’s decision shall be based upon the complaint. However, even if the Respondent has not formally replied to the Complainant’s contentions, the Complainant still bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled. Concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.3. It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar 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 3.0, section 1.7. The Complainant has submitted evidence of numerous trademark registrations for the VUSE mark, which predate the registration of the disputed domain name by more than a decade. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established rights in the VUSE trademark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. page 4 The disputed domain name incorporates the Complainant’s VUSE mark in its entirety, followed by the term “vapes”. The addition of such a term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. As stated in section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, “where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms... would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”. The Panel further finds that the Complainant’s mark is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is typically disregarded in the assessment of confusing similarity under the first element. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, 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 (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent is neither affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant to use its VUSE trademark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or has acquired any trademark rights in connection with the term “VUSE” or “VUSE VAPES”. Nor is there any evidence suggesting the Respondent has made a bona fide offering of goods or services prior to notice of the dispute. The Respondent has not asserted any such rights or legitimate interests. Further, the Respondent’s website prominently features the Complainant’s VUSE trademark, including copyrighted product images directly taken from the Complainant’s official regional website, without authorization. The website offers what appear to be the Complainant’s goods alongside unrelated third-party cannabis products. In addition, the website contains no disclaimer that would negate a misleading impression of association with the Complainant. In view of the composition of the disputed domain name, which combines the Complainant’s VUSE trademark with the closely descriptive term “vapes”, and the nature of the website to which it resolves, notably using the Complainant’s mark to sell third-party products, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name does not constitute a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Panel further notes that the Respondent has failed to respond to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist communication and has not formally participated in these proceedings to assert any rights or provide an alternative explanation for its conduct. page 5 On the basis of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case and that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The second element of the Policy has therefore been satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that may demonstrate bad faith registration and use. The standard of proof in UDRP proceedings is the balance of probabilities. Panels may draw reasonable inferences based on the facts and circumstances of the case (WIPO Overview 3.0, section 4.2). The Complainant has submitted that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in full awareness of the Complainant and its VUSE trademark, and that the disputed domain name is being used to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark for commercial gain. The Panel notes that the Complainant’s VUSE mark is distinctive and was registered many years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The Panel finds it inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its VUSE mark at the time of registration, particularly as the website linked to the disputed domain name features the Complainant’s product imagery directly copied from the Complainant’s official website. These elements collectively indicate that the Respondent had the Complainant firmly in mind when registering the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name to intentionally attract Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. As to the composition of the disputed domain name, the addition to the Complainant’s trademark of the term “vapes” which directly relates to the Complainant’s product does not reduce the likelihood of confusion but instead amplifies it. The Respondent’s website prominently displays the Complainant’s trademarks and copyrighted content without authorization and offers goods that appear to include the Complainant’s products. Moreover, it includes unrelated third-party goods, including cannabis products, sold under the misleading impression of affiliation with the Complainant. The absence of any disclaimer on the website to which the disputed domain name resolves reinforces the false impression of association. As noted in WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.7, the lack of a clear and prominent disclaimer in these circumstances supports a finding of bad faith. The website’s unauthorized use of the Complainant’s trademark, combined with its commercial nature, reinforces the Panel’s view that the Respondent has sought to profit from consumer confusion. Finally, the Respondent failed to respond to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist communication, nor has it substantively participated in these proceedings. As noted in previous UDRP cases, the absence of a reply from the Respondent can support an inference of bad faith, particularly where the conduct and content at issue strongly indicate intentional misuse of another party’s trademark (see, e.g., Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Hongwei Song, WIPO Case No. D2019-1647). In view of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) and paragraph 4(b) of the Policy. page 6 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 <vusevapes.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Ganna Prokhorova/ Ganna Prokhorova Sole Panelist Date: July 9, 2025

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.