Vusevapepods.com

The timeline behind vusevapepods.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 R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Ben Karl Claim Number: FA2602002205060 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 Ben Karl ("Respondent"), Cameroon. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <vusevapepods.com> (the "Disputed Domain Name"), 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. David L. Kreider, Chartered Arbitrator (UK), as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 12, 2026; Forum received payment on February 12, 2026. On February 17, 2026, Dynadot Inc confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <vusevapepods.com> domain name is registered with Dynadot Inc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. 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 February 18, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 10, 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@vusevapepods.com. Also on February 18, 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 March 11, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed David L. Kreider 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 name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PRELIMINARY ISSUE: MULTIPLE COMPLAINANTS The Complaint is filed by two entities: R.J. Reynolds Vapor Company and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. The Complaint states that these entities are affiliated and provides supporting documentation. In cases involving multiple complainants, panels have permitted co-complainants to proceed jointly where they demonstrate a sufficient nexus or common grievance. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 4.11.1. The Panel is satisfied that both entities share a common legal interest in the VUSE trademarks and are proper co-complainants in this proceeding. Accordingly, the Panel permits the Complaint to proceed with both entities as Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant is engaged in the manufacture, distribution, and sale of tobacco and nicotine products, including electronic cigarettes, vapor pods, cartridges, and accessories. In 2013, Complainant launched the world's first fully digital vapor cigarette under the VUSE mark. Since its launch, VUSE has become a leading brand in the vapor industry. Complainant owns United States trademark registrations for the VUSE word and design marks (the "VUSE Marks") and operates its official website at <vusevapor.com>. Complainant alleges that the Disputed Domain Name <vusevapepods.com> is confusingly similar to the VUSE Marks because it incorporates the VUSE mark in its entirety with only the addition of the generic or descriptive terms "vape pods" and the gTLD ".com." Complainant alleges that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, is not affiliated with Complainant, and is not authorized to use the VUSE Marks. Complainant alleges that Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to operate a website (the "Respondent's Website") that impersonated Complainant by prominently displaying the VUSE Marks, using unauthorized copies of Complainant's copyrighted product images, and falsely claiming to offer authentic VUSE products for purchase. Complainant contends that Respondent was either selling counterfeit products or operating a fraud or phishing scheme, and that this does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Complainant alleges that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. Respondent registered the domain years after Complainant began using the VUSE Marks and used it to operate Respondent's Website to impersonate Complainant for commercial gain. Complainant contends that Respondent's conduct constitutes bad faith under Policy Paragraphs 4(b)(iii) and 4(b)(iv). Respondent's Website has since been taken down following a DMCA notice to the hosting provider. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS The Panel finds the following: Complainant owns registered trademarks for the VUSE word and design marks used in connection with its vapor and electronic cigarette products. Complainant's earliest United States trademark registration for VUSE is Registration No. 4,230,347, registered on October 23, 2012. Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name <vusevapepods.com> on August 27, 2025. The Registrar-supplied WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Ben Karl." There is no evidence that Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name or by VUSE or any similar name under Policy Paragraph 4(c)(ii). The Disputed Domain Name resolved to Respondent's Website, which impersonated Complainant by prominently displaying the VUSE Marks, using unauthorized copies of Complainant's copyrighted product images, and falsely claiming to be "Vuse" and to offer authentic VUSE products for purchase. The Panel considers it highly likely that the products purportedly sold on Respondent's Website were either counterfeit or the listings were part of a fraud or phishing scheme. 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 established rights in the VUSE mark through its United States trademark registrations and extensive use in commerce since at least 2012. The Disputed Domain Name <vusevapepods.com> incorporates Complainant's VUSE mark in its entirety, adding only the generic or descriptive terms "vape pods" and the gTLD ".com." The addition of terms that are descriptive of Complainant's products does not sufficiently distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from Complainant's mark; rather, it compounds the likelihood of confusion. See R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. jxck Toliver, FA 2093504 (Forum May 8, 2024) (finding the terms "menthol vapes" to be generic or descriptive and ordering transfer of the vusementholvapes.com domain name); see also JUUL Labs, Inc. v. April Owen, FA 1888499 (Forum Apr. 9, 2020) (finding the domain juulvapepods.com confusingly similar to complainant's mark because it merely added the generic term "vape pods"). The inclusion of the gTLD ".com" is irrelevant to the confusing similarity analysis. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 1.11.1. The Panel has no difficulty finding that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant's VUSE trademark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). Rights or Legitimate Interests Complainant must first make a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, at which point the burden shifts to Respondent to show that it does have rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 2.1. The WHOIS information identifies Respondent as "Ben Karl," and there is no evidence that Respondent has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant and is not licensed or authorized to use the VUSE Marks. See R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Vuse / Nde Steve, FA 2154945 (Forum June 5, 2025) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain name and was not authorized to use the VUSE mark). Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to operate Respondent's Website, which impersonated Complainant by prominently and repeatedly displaying the VUSE Marks, using unauthorized copies of Complainant's copyrighted product images, and falsely claiming to offer authentic VUSE products for purchase. This constitutes passing off and is not a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). See R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. James Jerry, FA 2109360 (Forum Aug. 30, 2024) (finding no rights or legitimate interest where the sole apparent use of the domain <vuseofficial.com> was for a website that attempted to pass itself off as that of complainant). Use of a domain name for illegal activity such as impersonation, phishing, or the sale of counterfeit goods can never confer rights or legitimate interests. See WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 2.13.1. Respondent has not submitted a Response or provided any evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on August 27, 2025, more than a decade after Complainant established rights in the VUSE mark through use in commerce and federal trademark registration. The Disputed Domain Name incorporates the VUSE mark in its entirety, and Respondent's Website prominently displayed the VUSE Marks and used unauthorized copies of Complainant's copyrighted product images. The Panel finds that Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with actual knowledge of Complainant's rights. See R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Vijik Koji, FA 2076338 (Forum Jan. 19, 2024) (finding bad faith where the respondent registered and used the domain name <vusepods.us> because it incorporated and was confusingly similar to the VUSE mark); see also WIPO Overview 3.0, ¶ 3.1.4. Respondent used the Disputed Domain Name to operate Respondent's Website, which impersonated Complainant, prominently displayed Complainant's VUSE Marks, and purported to offer Complainant's products for sale—either as counterfeits or as part of a fraud or phishing scheme—for Respondent's commercial gain. This conduct is calculated to attract internet users to Respondent's Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to source, sponsorship, or affiliation, and constitutes bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). See R.J. Reynolds Vapor Co. and RAI Strategic Holdings, Inc. v. Vuse / Nde Steve, FA 2154945 (Forum June 5, 2025) (finding bad faith where the resolving website attempted to impersonate complainant). The Panel finds that Respondent registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in 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 <vusevapepods.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. David L. Kreider, Panelist Dated: March 12, 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.