Vusevapor.shop, Vusevaping.shop

The timeline behind vusevapor.shop

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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

NATIONAL ARBITRATION FORUM DECISION R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Robert King Claim Number: FA2601002198530 PARTIES Complainant is R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Crystal Genteman of KILPATRICK TOWNSEND & STOCKTON LLP, Georgia, USA. Respondent is Robert King ("Respondent"), California, USA. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <vusevapor.shop> and <vusevaping.shop>, registered with Dynadot Inc. 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. Hon. Karl v. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on January 7, 2026; Forum received payment on January 7, 2026. On January 9, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <vusevapor.shop> and <vusevaping.shop> domain names are registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. Dynadot Inc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Dynadot Inc 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 January 15, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of February 4, 2026 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@vusevapor.shop, postmaster@vusevaping.shop. Also on January 15, 2026, 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, Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On February 5, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that 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, 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 names be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS UDRP Rule 3(a) and Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) govern situations involving multiple complainants. UDRP Rule 3(a) states, "Any person or entity may initiate an administrative proceeding by submitting a complaint." Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) defines "The Party Initiating a Complaint Concerning a Domain Name Registration" as a "single person or entity claiming to have rights in the domain name, or multiple persons or entities who have a sufficient nexus who can each claim to have rights to all domain names listed in the Complaint." The two Complainants in this matter, R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc., are affiliated companies with the same corporate group. No objection has been made to treating the two Complainants as a single entity. Previous panels have interpreted Forum's Supplemental Rule 1(e) to allow multiple parties to proceed as one party where they can show a sufficient link to each other. See Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. v. Jerry Guess, FA 2002904 (Forum Aug. 23, 2022) ("While it appears that a single Complainant filed this proceeding, there are two Complainants in this matter: Guess? IP Holder L.P. and Guess?, Inc. Complainant argues that they have a sufficient nexus to both claim rights in the Trademark GUESS because Guess? IP Holder L.P. is effectively owned by Guess?, Inc. The Panel will accept Complainant's assertion and will treat both Complainants as a single entity."); BFD, Inc. and Barefoot Dreams, Inc. v. kanggeng sheng, FA 1997581 (Forum July 6, 2022) ("There are two Complainants in this matter: BFD, Inc. and Barefoot Dreams, Inc. BFD, Inc. is the owner of the primary mark BFD that is the subject of this complaint, and has exclusively licensed Barefoot Dreams, Inc. to make and sell products under the BFD mark, which it does…. The Panel finds that the evidence in the Complaint is sufficient to establish a sufficient nexus or link between the Complainants, and thus it will treat them as a single entity in this proceeding."); ITT Inc. and ITT Manufacturing Enterprises, LLC v. Thomas Romero, FA 1961339 (Forum Sept. 29, 2021) ("It has been accepted that it is permissible for two complainants to submit a single complaint if they can demonstrate a link between the two entities such as a relationship involving a license, a partnership or an affiliation that would establish the reason for the parties bringing the complaint as one entity."). The Panel finds that Complainants have provided evidence to establish a sufficient nexus or link between them and will treat Complainants as a single entity for purposes of this proceeding. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of tobacco and nicotine products (including electronic cigarettes, pods, and cartridges filled with e-liquid), and accessories and related products. In 2013, Complainant launched the world's first fully digital vapor cigarette under the name and mark VUSE. Complainant provides information on its VUSE products through its website at the <vusevapor.com> domain name. The website requires age (21 and older) verification and login credentials before consumers can access the website to receive information or promotional offers related to Complainant's VUSE products. The <vusevapor.shop> disputed domain name was registered December 12, 2025, and incorporates Complainant's entire VUSE mark and differs only by the addition of the generic term "vapor" and the .shop gTLD. The <vusevaping.shop> disputed domain name was registered December 19, 2025, and incorporates the entire VUSE mark and differs only by the addition of the generic term "vaping" and the .shop gTLD Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in its disputed domain names. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use its VUSE mark. Respondent has not used or prepared to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith to impersonate Complainant to divert users from Complainant's website and disrupt Complainant's business for Respondent's commercial gain. There is no legitimate reason for Respondent's registration and use of the domain names. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS For the reasons set forth below, based upon the uncontested allegations and evidence, the Panel finds that Complainant is entitled to the requested relief of transfer of the <vusevapor.shop> and <vusevaping.shop> 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 and 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 Complainant has many registrations of the VUSE mark, including Registration No. 4230347, registered October 23, 2012. with the USPTO, Complainant's registration of the mark with the United States establishes Complainant's rights in the mark, as "registration of a mark with a legitimate governmental authority is sufficient under the Policy to allow a rebuttable presumption of rights in the mark." See Target Brands, Inc. v JK Internet Services, FA 0349108 (Forum Dec. 14, 2004). The Panel finds that Complainant has rights in the mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant argues that Respondent's <vusevapor.shop> and <vusevaping.shop> domain names are confusingly similar to the VUSE mark because they incorporate that mark completely and differ only by the addition of, the generic terms "vapor" and "vaping", and the .shop gTLD. The addition of generic or descriptive words does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. Bloomberg Finance L.P. v. Nexperian Holding Limited, FA 1782013 (Forum June 4, 2018) ("Where a relevant trademark is recognizable within a disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element."). Additionally, it is a well-established principle that generic top-level domains are irrelevant when conducting a Policy¶ 4(a)(i) analysis. See Isleworth Land Co. v Lost in Space, SA, FA 117330 (Forum Sept. 27, 2002). The Panel finds that Respondent's <vusevapor.shop> and <vusevaping.shop> domain names are confusingly similar to the VUSE mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Complainant has proved this element. Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Should it succeed in this effort, the burden then shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See Advanced International Marketing Corporation v. AA-1 Corp, FA 780200 (Forum Nov. 2, 2011) (finding that a complainant must offer some evidence to make its prima facie case and satisfy Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii)); see also Neal & Massey Holdings Limited v. Gregory Ricks, FA 1549327 (Forum Apr. 12, 2014) ("Under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), Complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of an at-issue domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to Respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests"). The Panel finds that Complainant has made a prima facie case. Complaint argues that Respondent has not been licensed, contracted, or otherwise permitted by the Complainant in any way to use the VUSE mark or to apply for any domain name incorporating the VUSE mark, nor has the Complainant acquiesced in any way to such use or application of the VUSE mark by the Respondent. There is no evidence of fair use and there is no evidence that the Respondent is using or plans to use the VUSE mark or the domain name incorporating the VUSE mark for a bona fide offering of goods or services. There is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain names. WIPO Overview 3.0, Section 2.1 provides: While the overall burden of proof rests with the complainant, panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore a complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. Once such prima facie case is made, respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, a complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the UDRP. The Panel finds that Respondent has not met the burden and finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain names. Complainant has proved this element. Registration and Use in Bad Faith Complainant argues that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain names in bad faith to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's VUSE mark for commercial gain. Respondent uses the disputed domain names to impersonate Complainant or to attempt to show some official connection with Complainant for commercial again. This is evidence of bad faith. Complainant also argues that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's rights in the VUSE mark when it registered the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that Respondent's prior knowledge of Complainant's VUSE mark is evident from the fame of Complainant's mark and Respondent's use of the VUSE mark in the disputed domain names and on the resolving websites. Respondent's registration and use of the disputed domain names with knowledge of Complainant's rights in the VUSE mark shows Respondent's bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain names pursuant to the Policy. See Minicards Vennootschap Onder FIrma Amsterdam v. Moscow Studios, FA 1031703 (Forum Sept. 5, 2007) (holding that respondent registered a domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii) after concluding that respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's mark when registering the disputed domain name); see also, Ripple Labs Inc. v. Jessie McKoy/Ripple Reserve Fund, FA 1790949 (Forum July 9, 2018) ("Complainant contends Respondent's appropriation of Complainant's trademark was a clear intent to trade upon Complainant's reputation and goodwill in order to confuse Internet users)". The Panel finds, from Respondent's knowledge of Complainant's mark and the use made of the disputed domain names, that Respondent registered and uses the domain names in bad faith. Complainant has proved this element. 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 <vusevapor.shop> and <vusevaping.shop> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Hon. Karl V. Fink (Ret.) Panelist February 16, 2026 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.