Vapostoreoutlet.com

The timeline behind vapostoreoutlet.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 Vapostore v. Dynadot, Dynadot Case No. D2026-3437 1. The Parties The Complainant is Vapostore, France, represented by MIIP MADE IN IP, France. The Respondent is Dynadot, Dynadot, United States of America. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <vapostoreoutlet.com> is registered with Dominet (HK) Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 3, 2026. On August 4, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 5, 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 (Redacted for Privacy (DT)) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 5, 2026, p roviding 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 August 7, 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 August 19, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 8, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 10, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Simone Huser as the sole panelist in this matter on September 22, 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 is a French c ompany and retail chain founded in 2012, and specializing in e-cigarettes, e- liquids and vaping accessories. The Complainant operates an extensive network of stores in France, and is also active in Switzerland, among other countries. The Complainant holds the domain name <vapostore.com>, which hosts its main website. The Complainant owns trademark registrations in several jurisdictions, including: - , European Union (“EU”) Trademark Registration No. 011389781, registered on May 22, 2013, in international classes 5, 34, 35, and 43; and - , Swiss Trademark Registration No. 745969, registered on April 23, 2020, in international classes 9, 34, 35, and 43; The Complainant has furthermore filed the EU Trademark Application No. 019396594, for VAPOSTORE OUTLET and design, on July 17, 2026, in international classes 9, 34, and 35. The disputed domain name was registered on July 20, 2026. According to the evidence submitted with the Complaint, the disputed domain name redirects to a website offering the disputed domain name for sale at a price of USD 1,999 (or a discounted price of USD 1,899). 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 as follows: The disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the registered trademark in which the Complainant has rights, because it incorporates the word element VAPOSTORE of the Complainant’s mark in its entirety, and only differs by the addition of the term “outlet”, which is a term commonly used to designate a type of store where manufacturers sell products directly to consumers at discounted prices. The Respondent has no rights in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and the Respondent is not making any commercial or noncommercial use of the disputed domain name, other than to display a web page offering the disputed domain name for sale at a price that far exceeds typical domain name registration fees. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith for the sole purpose of undue advantage of the Complainant’s prior trademarks and reputation, and for selling it to the Complainant for valuable consideration. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademarks and reputation and given that the disputed domain name was registered only three days after the Complainant filed the EU Trademark page 3 Application No. 019396594 for VAPOSTORE OUTLET, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s earlier rights. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 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 textual element VAPOSTORE of the Complainant’s mark is reproduced, and thus, recognizable, 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, “outlet”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such 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 that 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. The disputed domain name incorporates the textual element VAPOSTORE of the Complainant’s mark, and there is no evidence of any relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, nor of any authorization granted by the Complainant to use its trademark in a domain name. Moreover, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name was registered shortly after the Complainant filed its application for the page 4 trademark VAPOSTORE OUTLET and design, and that the disputed domain name reproduces the textual element of this mark in its entirety. In these circumstances, and in the absence of any claim from the Respondent of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established the second element of the Policy. Based on the available record, 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 view of the Panel, noting that the Complainant’s VAPOSTORE trademark predates the registration of the disputed domain name, noting that the disputed domain name was registered shortly after the Complainant filed its application for the trademark VAPOSTORE OUTLET and design, and noting the Complainant’s online presence, the Panel finds that it is more likely than not that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights and targeted them when registering the disputed domain name. Under paragraph 4(b)(i) of the UDRP, circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring it to the complainant, who is the owner of the trademark or service mark, or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name, constitute evidence of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1. The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering the disputed domain name for sale for valuable consideration likely in excess of the documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name. The Panel further notes the Respondent’s failure to participate in these proceedings and/or to come forward with any explanation for the registration and use of the disputed domain name further supports this finding. 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 thus finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy with regard to the disputed domain name. 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 <vapostoreoutlet.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Simone Huser/ Simone Huser Sole Panelist Date: October 6, 2026

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