Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108726

The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain name.

According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant is the owner of the Trademark GEEK BAR registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office, registration number 6275589 and registration date February 23, 2021. 

According to the information provided the disputed domain name <geekbar25k.com> was registered on 19 September 2024.  

According to the information and evidence provided by Complainant the disputed domain name resolves to a commercial website prominently displaying Complainant's GEEK BAR trademark and offering disposable e-cigarette products within Complainant's core product category.  

Complainant
Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.

According to the evidence submitted by Complainant, Complainant is the manufacturer and global distributor of GEEK BAR disposable e-cigarette products. Complainant has achieved substantial commercial presence in Russia, United States, Middle East, and Europe, establishing significant global consumer recognition and brand goodwill.

Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GEEK BAR trademark. The disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s GEEK BAR mark, adding only the term “25k”. Complainant submits that the additional term “25k” is highly descriptive of Complainant’s specific product offerings. As evidenced by the landing page of the disputed domain name, which states, “Geek Bar 25k disposable is a high-capacity disposable designed to deliver up to 25,000 puffs...”, the term “25k” directly references the high-capacity puff count of the disposable vaping products sold under Complainant's GEEK BAR brand.

According to Complainant, Respondent has no rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Complainant asserts that Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or otherwise permitted Respondent to use the GEEK BAR trademark or to register any domain name incorporating that mark. Respondent is not an authorized distributor, reseller, or business partner of Complainant, and there is no relationship of any kind between the parties. There is no evidence that Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name resolves to a commercial website prominently displaying Complainant's GEEK BAR trademark and offering products within Complainant's core product category. Such use is plainly commercial in nature. Respondent's use neither constitutes a bona fide offering of goods or services nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use.

Complainant further submits that Respondent's conduct further fails to satisfy the criteria established in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, under which a reseller or distributor may, in limited circumstances, establish rights or legitimate interests in a domain name incorporating a third-party trademark. Under the Oki Data framework, the site must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant's relationship or lack thereof with the trademark holder. This condition is decisive. Respondent's website contains no disclaimer whatsoever disclosing that it is unaffiliated with, unauthorized by, or independent of Complainant. To the contrary, the prominent display of the GEEK BAR trademark alongside product descriptions mirroring Complainant's official product specifications creates an affirmative and false impression of official affiliation or endorsement. Complainant asserts that Respondent fails, at minimum, the third Oki Data condition - the most fundamental requirement of transparent disclosure -which alone is sufficient to preclude any finding of rights or legitimate interests under the reseller defense. In the absence of any authorization from Complainant, Respondent cannot credibly establish that its commercial use constitutes a bona fide offering within Complainant's authorized distribution network.
Complainant concludes that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

According to Complainant the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant's trademark rights substantially predate the registration of the disputed domain name. By the date of registration, the GEEK BAR mark had achieved significant commercial success and widespread consumer recognition across multiple major markets, including the United States, United Kingdom, Middle East, and Europe. GEEK BAR is a coined, invented designation with no dictionary meaning or descriptive significance in relation to vaping products. The registration was plainly made with actual knowledge of Complainant and its trademark rights, and with the intention of exploiting the goodwill associated with the GEEK BAR mark.

Complainant submits that Respondent's use of the disputed domain name falls squarely within paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Respondent is actively using a domain name incorporating Complainant's trademark in its entirety, together with a product-specific capacity identifier, to resolve to a commercial website offering vaping products in the same category as Complainant's goods. Respondent's website replicates not merely Complainant's brand name, but the specific technical language and product narrative associated with Complainant's goods. By engineering a domain name and website that jointly simulate Complainant's official product identity, Respondent has intentionally created a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website and the products offered thereon.

Respondent

No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy).

Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).

Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).

The Panel is satisfied that all procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.

In the opinion of the Panel the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant's GEEK BAR trademark. Many UDRP decisions have found that a disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. Complainant has established that it is the owner of a trademark registration for GEEK BAR. The disputed domain name incorporates the entirety of the trademark as its distinctive element. The addition of the “25k” is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity, in particular as this term directly references the puff count of the disposable vaping products sold under Complainant's GEEK BAR brand. The Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” in the disputed domain name may be disregarded, as it is a standard registration requirement.

The Panel notes that Complainant’s registration of its trademark predates the creation date of the disputed domain name. 

In the opinion of the Panel Complainant has made a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted Respondent to use its trademark or to register the disputed domain name incorporating its mark. Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark of Complainant. Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor has it acquired trademark rights. Complainant has no relationship with Respondent. In addition, Complainant has demonstrated that the disputed domain name resolves to a website imitating the website of Complainant and marketing GEEK BAR branded products. The Panel notes that Respondent cannot use the so-called Oki Data exception as a reseller since the website under the disputed domain name does not accurately and prominently discloses the (lack of) Respondent’s relationship with Complainant as the trademark holder.      

Respondent did not submit any response. Under these circumstances, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.  

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Complainant has rights in the GEEK BAR trademark. Respondent knew or should have known that the disputed domain name includes Complainant’s mark.
The Panel also notes the undisputed submission of Complainant, supported by evidence, that the disputed domain name resolves to a website which incorporates Complainant’s trademark in its entirety and which sells GEEK BAR branded products, which indicates that Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the trademark of Complainant as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a service on its website or location, which constitutes registration and use in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.