Kangvapeshop.com

The timeline behind kangvapeshop.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 Kangvape LLC v. Jonathan Ennis Case No. D2026-1545 1. The Parties The Complainant is Kangvape LLC, United States of America (“United States”), represented by Fish & Richardson P.C., United States. The Respondent is Jonathan Ennis, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <kangvapeshop.com> is registered with Spaceship, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 12, 2026. On April 13, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 14, 2026, 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 (Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 16, 2026, 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 April 20, 2026. 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 April 21, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 11, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of the Respondent’s default on May 12, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa as the sole panelist in this matter on May 18, 2026. 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, based in Georgia, United States, is a manufacturer of vaping products, including vape pens, cartridges, and disposable e-cigarettes. It is the proprietor of several trademarks, including the following: - United States Trademark Registration No. 6938900 for KANGVAPE (word mark), registered on January 3, 2023 for goods in class 34, claiming a date of first use in 2014; - United States Trademark Registration No. 6938901 for (device mark), registered on January 3, 2023 for goods in class 34, claiming a date of first use in 2016. The Complainant operates its primary business website at the domain name <kangvapecig.com>. The disputed domain name was registered on August 28, 2025. As of the date of this Decision, it did not resolve to an active website. The record contains evidence that it previously resolved to a website displaying the Complainant’s device mark purporting to offer the Complainant’s goods for sale. The website states “Professional Vape Manufacturer, Welcome to Learn More,” and “At KangVape, we’re more than just a vaping brand [...].” 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 it has consistently and prominently used the KANGVAPE mark in connection with vape products since 2014. The mark has gained substantial recognition in the marketplace. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s mark, save for the addition of the generic term “shop”. The Respondent is not associated nor affiliated with the Complainant and has no permission to use its KANGVAPE mark. The Respondent has provided a non-existent contact address and a contact telephone number identified with a scam site. The Respondent’s website displayed the Complainant’s mark and logo and purports to sell identical products, which the Complainant cannot verify as genuine KANGVAPE items. The Complainant requests transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the UDRP requires Complainant to make out all three of the following: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. Under paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, “[a] Panel shall 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. 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the Complainant’s KANGVAPE mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, “shop”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, t he Panel finds the addition of such a term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. 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 that 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 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. page 4 The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to offer KANGVAPE-branded products without disclosing its lack of relationship with the Complainant through a website passing off as the Complainant’s does not demonstrate the Respondent’s legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. UDRP panels have held that such use does not amount to legitimate noncommercial or fair use. In this case, the Panel finds that the Respondent is using the disputed domain name, which reflects the Complainant’s established KANGVAPE mark, to lure Internet users to its own commercial website offering vape products for sale, creating confusion for commercial gain. The Panel finds that the nature and use of the disputed domain name carry a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant that cannot constitute fair use. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. The Respondent has not put forward any rights or legitimate interests. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name, nor that there are any circumstances or activities that would establish the Respondent’s rights therein. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. The Complainant established rights in its KANGVAPE mark several years prior to the registration of the disputed domain name which reflects the KANGVAPE mark in its entirety, together with the descriptive term “shop”. On this record, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. The disputed domain name was used for a website on which the Respondent was offering for sale goods displaying the Complainant’s mark that the Complainant cannot verify as legitimate. Regardless of the status of those goods, however, the Respondent has, without the Complainant’s permission, registered a domain name containing its mark and used that domain name to direct to a website displaying the Complainant’s mark and offering identical or competing goods for sale, without disclosing its lack of affiliation with the Complainant. In the circumstances, current non-use of the disputed domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith. On this record, the Panel finds the disputed domain name has been used in bad faith. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 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 <kangvapeshop.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa/ Ingrīda Kariņa-Bērziņa Sole Panelist Date: June 1, 2026

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