Juulturkiye9.com + 8 more domains

The timeline behind juulturkiye9.com

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 JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Claim Number: FA2602002206820 PARTIES Complainant is JUUL Labs, Inc. ("Complainant"), represented by Hillary Schroeder of JUUL Labs, Inc., District of Columbia, USA. Respondent is sait bagci / Emre Can Kartepe / sade gulseven / sarave / Suat Kalbur / Sami Umut / sinem sencer / Levent Unal ("Respondent"), Turkey. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAMES The domain names at issue are <juulturkiye9.com>, <jullturkiye10.com>, <jullturkiye11.com>, <juulturkiye11.com>, <jullturkiye12.com>, <juulturkiye12.com>, <juulturkiye13.com>, <juulturkiye14.com>, and <julltr.com>, registered with ODTÜ Gelistirme Vakfi Bilgi Teknolojileri Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi; Porkbun LLC; Eranet International Limited; and Name.com, Inc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that they have acted independently and impartially and to the best of their knowledge have no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Adam Taylor as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to Forum electronically on February 23, 2026; Forum received payment on February 23, 2026. On Feb 24, 2026; Feb 25, 2026; Mar 1, 2026, ODTÜ Gelistirme Vakfi Bilgi Teknolojileri Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi; Porkbun LLC; Eranet International Limited; Name.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to Forum that the <juulturkiye9.com>, <jullturkiye10.com>, <jullturkiye11.com>, <juulturkiye11.com>, <jullturkiye12.com>, <juulturkiye12.com>, <juulturkiye13.com>, <juulturkiye14.com>, and <julltr.com> domain names are registered with ODTÜ Gelistirme Vakfi Bilgi Teknolojileri Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi; Porkbun LLC; Eranet International Limited; and Name.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the names. ODTÜ Gelistirme Vakfi Bilgi Teknolojileri Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi; Porkbun LLC; Eranet International Limited; and Name.com, Inc. have verified that Respondent is bound by the ODTÜ Gelistirme Vakfi Bilgi Teknolojileri Sanayi Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi; Porkbun LLC; Eranet International Limited; and Name.com, Inc. registration agreements 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 March 9, 2026, Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 30, 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@juulturkiye9.com, postmaster@jullturkiye10.com, postmaster@jullturkiye11.com, postmaster@juulturkiye11.com, postmaster@jullturkiye12.com, postmaster@juulturkiye12.com, postmaster@juulturkiye13.com, postmaster@juulturkiye14.com, and postmaster@julltr.com. Also on March 9, 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 31, 2026, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, Forum appointed Adam Taylor 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 RESPONDENTS The Panel is satisfied that the disputed domain names are subject to common control, this not having been denied by Respondents, and that, in the circumstances, consolidation is fair and equitable to all parties, and also procedurally efficient. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 4.11. In particular, the Panel notes that: - the disputed domain names are in a similar format in that they all comprise the terms "juul", or misspelling "jull", plus the word "turkiye" or the geographical abbreviation "tr" denoting Turkey, and all but one include a numerical suffix between 9 and 13; - the disputed domain names are all registered to addresses in Istanbul and all but two use the same telephone number; - many of the disputed domain names resolve, or resolved, to similar websites, and/or redirect to each other; and - the registrants have not appeared in this proceeding to contest consolidation. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants in a single proceeding. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has rights in the JUUL mark based upon registration of its mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office ("USPTO") and upon common law rights arising from long-standing continuous business use. The disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's mark. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent has not used the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; on the contrary, Respondent has used some of the disputed domain names to misleadingly divert customers from Complainant's website. Other of the disputed domain names are inactive. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. Respondent has not made legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith. Respondent's actual knowledge of Complainant's mark is evidenced by the content of Respondent's websites and by Complainant's fame. Respondent has used certain of the disputed domain names to create a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark for commercial gain. Respondent registered the disputed domain names primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor. Respondent is passively holding certain of the disputed domain names in bad faith. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Complainant has supplied vaping products under the mark JUUL since 2015, with global sales in the billions of dollars. Complainant owns various registered trademarks for JUUL, including Reg. No. 6,211,614, registered with the USPTO on December 1, 2020. Complainant operates a website at www.juul.com. The disputed domain names were registered on the following dates: September 15, 2022: <julltr.com> October 5, 2024: <juulturkiye9.com> March 3, 2025: <jullturkiye10.com> April 27, 2025: <juulturkiye11.com> May 1, 2025: <jullturkiye11.com> June 30, 2025: <jullturkiye12.com> October 10, 2025: <juulturkiye12.com> October 25, 2025: <juulturkiye13.com> November 12, 2025: <juulturkiye14.com> The disputed domain name <julltr.com> resolves to a website branded with Complainant's logo and marketing imagery, and purporting to sell Complainant's products and competing products. The disputed domain names <jullturkiye10.com> and <jullturkiye11.com> previously resolved to similar content, but are currently inactive. The disputed domain names <jullturkiye12.com> and <juulturkiye14.com> resolve to websites branded "woodmart", and purporting to sell Complainant's products and competing products. The disputed domain name <juulturkiye11.com> previously resolved to similar content, but is currently inactive. The disputed domain names <juulturkiye9.com> (redirects to <juulturkiye11.com>), <juulturkiye12.com> and <juulturkiye13.com> (redirects to <juulturkiye12.com>) are all inactive. Those disputed domain names which are, or have been, actively used, are referred to hereafter as "the Active Domains". All other disputed domain names are referred to as "the Inactive Domains". 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 Since Complainant has provided evidence of registration of the JUUL mark with the USPTO, the Panel finds that Complainant has rights in that mark under Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). The disputed domain names incorporate Complainant's distinctive mark or the "jull" misspelling thereof. Such variations are considered by panels to be confusingly similar to the relevant mark for purposes of the first element. This stems from the fact that the domain names contain sufficiently recognizable aspects of the relevant mark. See WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.1 at ¶ 1.9. The disputed domain names all add the geographical terms "turkiye" or "tr", and all but one also include numerals. It is well established under the Policy that the incorporation of a recognizable complainant's mark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish confusing similarity, even when combined with additional terms. See 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."). Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to Complainant's JUUL mark 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 names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii); then the burden shifts to Respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests. See 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."). Complainant argues that Respondent fails to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use. As discussed under the third element below, the Panel considers that Respondent is using certain of the disputed domain names to intentionally attempt to attract, confuse and profit from Internet users seeking Complainant's goods and/or services. Such activity is plainly not bona fide. Nor does it qualify as legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Furthermore, the other disputed domain names are not in active use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent does not use the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or (iii). Complainant further contends that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names since Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names. WHOIS information may be used to determine whether a respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Braun Corp. v. Loney, FA 699652 (Forum July 7, 2006) (concluding that the respondent was not commonly known by the disputed domain names where the WHOIS information, as well as all other information in the record, gave no indication that the respondent was commonly known by the domain names, and the complainant had not authorized the respondent to register a domain name containing its registered mark). The WHOIS information for the disputed domain names lists the registrants as "sait bagci / Emre Can Kartepe / sade gulseven / sarave / Suat Kalbur / Sami Umut / sinem sencer / Levent Unal" and there is no other information on the record indicating that Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the Panel finds that Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names per Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). Registration and Use in Bad Faith As regards the Active Domains, the Panel considers that Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its websites for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's trademark under Policy ¶ 4(b)(iv). First, the disputed domain names reflect Complainant's distinctive mark. Second, Respondent has used the disputed domain names for websites that create the impression that they are associated with Complainant, including by prominent use of Complainant's mark/logo, designs and imagery and/or by purporting to offer Complainant's goods or services and/or the same kind of products provided by C, as well as by the lack of any prominent disclaimer. As regards the Inactive Domains, it is well accepted that the elements of Policy ¶ 4(b) are not exclusive and that panels may consider all of the circumstances of a given case, including passive holding, in making their bad faith analysis. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 (finding that in determining whether the passive holding of a domain name, following a bad faith registration, satisfies paragraph 4(a)(iii), the panel must consider all the circumstances of the respondent's conduct, and a finding of bad faith may be made where those circumstances show that the passive holding amounts to bad faith use). Having reviewed the record, the Panel considers that the following circumstances are indicative of passive holding of the Inactive Domains in bad faith: 1. the fact that the Inactive Domains form part of an abusive pattern of conduct in conjunction with the Active Domains, which have been used to target Complainant's mark; 2. the failure of Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good faith use; and 3. the implausibility of any good faith use to which the disputed domain names may be put. Therefore, the Panel concludes that Respondent has registered, and is using, the disputed domain names 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 <juulturkiye9.com>, <jullturkiye10.com>, <jullturkiye11.com>, <juulturkiye11.com>, <jullturkiye12.com>, <juulturkiye12.com>, <juulturkiye13.com>, <juulturkiye14.com>, and <julltr.com> domain names be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Adam Taylor, Panelist Dated: April 1, 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.