Juulsepeti.com

The timeline behind juulsepeti.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.

DECISION JUUL Labs, Inc. v. OZGUR CERIDI Claim Number: FA2110001968591 PARTIES Complainant is JUUL Labs, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James F. Struthers of Richard Law Group, Inc., Texas, USA. Respondent is OZGUR CERIDI (“Respondent”), Turkey. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <juulsepeti.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Richard Hill as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on October 12, 2021; the Forum received payment on October 12, 2021. On October 12, 2021, GoDaddy.com, LLC confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <juulsepeti.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, LLC has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, 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 October 13, 2021, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of November 2, 2021 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 postmaster@juulsepeti.com. Also on October 13, 2021, 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 November 5, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Richard Hill 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. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant states that it sells vaporizer devices to provide an alternative to cigarettes for adult smokers marketed under its JUUL mark. Complainant’s proprietary nicotine salt formula, design, and temperature regulation result in an experience that it believes created the first viable alternative to cigarettes for adult smokers. Since the company’s launch, Complainant’s vaporizers have gown immensely in popularity. Based on Nielsen retail monthly sales data for vapor devices, Complainant sold 16.2 million devices and posted more than $1 billion in revenue in 2018. As of 2020, Complainant’s products represented more than 50% of the US e-cigarette market share and Complainant had a market presence in more than a dozen countries. Complainant claims rights in the JUUL mark through its registration in the United States in 2015. The mark is registered elsewhere around the world and it is famous. Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its JUUL mark because it incorporates the mark in its entirety, merely adding the descriptive term “sepeti”, which is the Turkish word for “cart”, and the “.com” generic top-level domain (“gTLD”). Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. According to Complainant, Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name because Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has Respondent been authorized to use Complainant’s JUUL mark. Respondent is not using the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use because the resolving website offers for sale competing products and unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. Further, says Complainant, Respondent registered and uses the disputed in bad faith to promote unauthorized or counterfeit and competing products for commercial gain. In addition, Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use: it has been found to have acted in bad faith in at least four previous UDRP proceedings. Finally, Respondent acted with actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the JUUL mark. Complainant cites UDRP precedents to support its position. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has rights in the mark JUUL and uses it to market an alternative to cigarettes. The mark was registered in 2015. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. The disputed domain name was registered in 2018. The resolving website offers unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products, together with competing products; it displays Complainant’s mark and logo. Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use of domain names. DISCUSSION 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”). Identical and/or Confusingly Similar The disputed domain name incorporates Complainant’s mark in its entirety and merely adds the descriptive term “sepeti”, which is the Turkish word for “cart”, and the “.com” gTLD. A domain name may be found to be identical or confusingly similar despite such changes. See The Toronto-Dominion Bank v. George Whitehead, FA 1784412 (Forum June 11, 2018) (“[S]light differences between domain names and registered marks, such as the addition of words that describe the goods or services in connection with the mark and gTLDs, do not distinguish the domain name from the mark incorporated therein per Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that the <juulsepeti.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s JUUL mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized Respondent to use its mark. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name: evidence of a respondent not being commonly known by a domain name may be found where the identifying WHOIS information is unrelated to a domain name and where a respondent lacks authorization to use a Complainant’s mark. See Alaska Air Group, Inc. and its subsidiary, Alaska Airlines v. Song Bin, FA1408001574905 (Forum Sept. 17, 2014) (holding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the WHOIS information and based on the fact that the complainant had not licensed or authorized the respondent to use its ALASKA AIRLINES mark). Here, the WHOIS information of record lists the registrant as “OZGUR CERIDI”. Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). The resolving website offers for sale unauthorized or counterfeit versions of Complainant’s products (displaying Complainant’s mark and logo), and competing products. Use of a domain name to sell a complainant’s own products or products that compete with a complainant may be evidence of a domain name not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) and (iii). See General Motors LLC v. MIKE LEE, FA 1659965 (Forum Mar. 10, 2016) (finding that “use of a domain to sell products and/or services that compete directly with a complainant’s business does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii).”); see also Caterpillar Inc. v. Huth, FA 169056 (Forum Sept. 2, 2003) (“Respondent lacks rights in the disputed domain names because Respondent competes with Complainant by selling Complainant's used parts without a license from Complainant to do so.”); see also Fossil Group, Inc. v. wuwuima wu FA 1544486 (Forum Mar. 21, 2014) (finding the use of the Fossil mark and images of what appear to be genuine Fossil products including watches, wallets and purses established that Respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name). Therefore, the Panel finds that that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain name to make a bona fide offering of goods or services pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). And the Panel finds that Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent (who did not reply to Complainant’s contentions) has not presented any plausible explanation for its use of Complainant’s mark. In accordance with paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from Respondent’s failure to reply as it considers appropriate. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent did not have a legitimate use in mind when registering the disputed domain name. Indeed, as already noted, the resolving website offers for sale unauthorized or counterfeit or competing products. Use of a domain name purportedly to sell a complainant’s products as well as products of competing third-parties may be evidence of a domain name registered and used in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and (iv). See ZIH Corp. v. ou yang lin q, FA1761403 (Forum Dec. 29, 2017) (Finding bad faith where Respondent used the infringing domain name to disrupt Complainant’s business by diverting Internet users from Complainant’s website to Respondent’s website where it offered competing printer products); see also Fanuc Ltd v. Mach. Control Servs., FA 93667 (Forum Mar. 13, 2000) (finding that the respondent violated Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv) by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant's mark by using a domain name identical to the complainant’s mark to sell the complainant’s products); see also Crocs, Inc. v. jing dian, Case No. FA1410001587214 (Forum Dec. 12, 2014) (finding bad faith where the respondent used the disputed domain name to display the complainant’s marks to sell unauthorized goods). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶¶ 4(b)(iii) and/or (iv). Further, Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii): Complainant cites four UDRP cases where panels found against Respondent. See DIRECTV, LLC v. michal restl c/o Dynadot, FA 1788826 (Forum July 5, 2018) (“The record contains evidence of Respondents previous eleven UDRP actions, all of which resulted in the transfer of the domain names, thus establishing bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii).”). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(b)(ii). Finally, Respondent registered the disputed domain name with actual knowledge of Complainant’s mark: the resolving website displays Complainant’s products, with Complainant’s mark and logo. While constructive notice is insufficient to demonstrate bad faith, actual knowledge of a complainant’s rights in a mark prior to registration may be evidence of bad faith per Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Custom Modular Direct LLC v. Custom Modular Homes Inc., FA 1140580 (Forum Apr. 8, 2008) (“There is no place for constructive notice under the Policy.”); see also Orbitz Worldwide, LLC v. Domain Librarian, FA 1535826 (Forum Feb. 6, 2014) (“The Panel notes that although the UDRP does not recognize ‘constructive notice’ as sufficient grounds for finding Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) bad faith, the Panel here finds actual knowledge through the name used for the domain and the use made of it.”); see also Univision Comm'cns Inc. v. Norte, FA 1000079 (Forum Aug. 16, 2007) (rejecting the respondent's contention that it did not register the disputed domain name in bad faith since the panel found that the respondent had knowledge of the complainant's rights in the UNIVISION mark when registering the disputed domain name). The Panel finds that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant’s rights in the mark prior to Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name and that this constitutes bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). DECISION Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <juulsepeti.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Richard Hill, Panelist Dated: November 5, 2021 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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