Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108759

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

The Complainant relies on its rights in the trademark GEEK BAR, and in particular on the following trademark registrations, all of which designate goods in class 34 of the Nice Classification and all of which predate the registration of the disputed domain name:

• International (Madrid) trademark GEEK BAR no. 1676896, with effective date of June 8, 2022;
• United States trademark GEEK BAR no. 6275589, with effective date of February 23, 2021;
• European Union trademark GEEK BAR no. 018225081, with effective date of August 26, 2020;
• Chinese trademark GEEK BAR no. 45380452, with effective date of January 7, 2021.

The disputed domain name <geekbar9000.com> was registered on November 9, 2023.

The Complainant, Guangdong Qisitech CO., LTD., is a company established in 2016 which is engaged in the research and development, manufacture and worldwide distribution of disposable electronic cigarette products under the brand GEEK BAR. The Complainant is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Shenzhen Geekvape Technology Co., Ltd., as confirmed by China’s National Enterprise Credit Information Publicity System. The two entities form part of the same corporate group and cooperate in the development, promotion and international marketing of the GEEK BAR brand.

GEEK BAR products are distributed in Russia, the United States, the Middle East, Europe and numerous other countries. The GEEK BAR product portfolio comprises several distinct disposable vape product lines, including the Pulse series (Patriot, Pulse and Pulse X), the Geek Bar Skyview, the Geek Bar Wondar and the MeLoso series. The Geek Bar Pulse 15000 delivers up to 15,000 puffs in regular mode and 7,500 puffs in pulse mode, and features a full-screen display, a 16 ml e-liquid capacity and a 650 mAh battery. The Complainant’s research and development team comprises more than 100 senior engineers, and the Complainant provides one-stop OEM solutions spanning design, research and development, procurement, manufacturing and after-sales service.

The GEEK BAR brand has been the subject of media coverage since 2022, in particular in respect of its performance on the United Kingdom market, has maintained a presence at major international industry exhibitions and has received awards in recognition of its product design and innovation. In January 2023, the Complainant announced a commitment of GBP 120 million to the construction of a new production facility to be located in the Zhuhai National High-Tech Industrial Development Zone, Guangdong Province, China. Google Trends data record sustained worldwide consumer search interest in the term “GEEK BAR” from January 2022 through October 2023. United States-specific Google Trends data record a sustained upward trajectory of consumer search interest throughout 2022 and 2023, culminating in the maximum index value of 100 in October 2023, that is, in the month immediately preceding the registration of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant is the owner of the trademark registrations identified above, each of which was registered before the registration of the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name <geekbar9000.com> was registered on November 9, 2023 with the registrar NAMECHEAP INC. The identity of the registrant was concealed by a privacy service in the publicly available WHOIS database and was disclosed in the course of these proceedings as “Jacory Gomez”.

The disputed domain name resolves to a website which presents itself as a GEEK BAR retail platform. The title bar of the website reads “Geek Bar Vape | Buy Geek Bar” and its homepage displays the words “GEEK BAR” and “THE BEST SELLING DISPOSABLE VAPE” in large stylised lettering. The website offers for sale, at commercial prices, products from multiple GEEK BAR product lines, including the Meloso Max 9000 series, the B5000 series and the Pulse 15000 series, under headings such as “GEEK BAR VAPES | GEEK BAR MELOSO MAX 9000”, and reproduces the Complainant’s official product imagery and promotional language. The website contains no disclaimer or any other indication as to the absence of a relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant, and states an address in Los Angeles, California, together with a sales e-mail address at the disputed domain name.

The Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorised the Respondent to use the GEEK BAR trademark, and there is no distribution agreement, reseller arrangement or other relationship of any kind between the Parties. The Respondent did not file a Response.

The Complainant contends that each of the three elements set out in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.

The Complainant contends that it holds registered rights in the GEEK BAR trademark in a number of jurisdictions and that the trademark rights and goodwill developed by affiliated entities within the same corporate group, in this case Shenzhen Geekvape Technology Co., Ltd., may be attributed to the trademark owner for the purposes of establishing rights under the Policy, so that evidence of the commercial activities carried out by that entity in connection with the GEEK BAR brand is probative of the Complainant’s rights and of the goodwill attaching to them. The Complainant further contends that, by reason of its media coverage, industry accolades, product range and documented consumer search interest, the GEEK BAR brand had acquired substantial international recognition, distinctiveness and commercial goodwill well before the disputed domain name was registered.

As to the first element, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its GEEK BAR trademark, which it incorporates in its entirety, the omission of the space between the two words being a technical necessity of the domain name system which does not prevent the trademark from remaining clearly recognisable. The Complainant submits that the suffix “9000” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity and in fact reinforces it, since “9000” is not a generic or independently meaningful numeral in the context of disposable electronic cigarettes but a specific model designation within the Complainant’s GEEK BAR product line denoting a device capable of delivering approximately 9,000 puffs, as confirmed by the Respondent’s own website, which markets products under the heading “GEEK BAR VAPES | GEEK BAR MELOSO MAX 9000”. The Complainant relies on section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, according to which the addition of other terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity where the trademark is recognisable within the domain name, and submits that this principle applies with particular force where the additional term is itself drawn from the Complainant’s own product nomenclature. The Complainant adds that the generic top-level domain “.com” is a standard registration requirement which is disregarded under the first element, referring to section 1.11 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.

As to the second element, the Complainant submits that it has never licensed, authorised or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the GEEK BAR trademark and that no distribution agreement, reseller arrangement or relationship of any kind exists between the Parties. It submits that searches of trademark registers and corporate records have not revealed any rights in “GEEK BAR” or “geekbar9000” standing in the Respondent’s name and that there is nothing to suggest that the Respondent has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name. The Complainant further submits that the composition of the disputed domain name itself signals the Respondent’s purpose, since the appending of a specific product model designation to the trademark causes the disputed domain name to read, to any consumer familiar with the product, as a dedicated official page for that GEEK BAR model, and is designed to intercept the consumers searching for it. The Complainant submits that the content of the website confirms that assessment, in that the website presents itself as a comprehensive GEEK BAR retail platform reproducing the Complainant’s entire brand environment, product catalogue, official imagery and marketing language, without any disclosure that the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant, and that such conduct constitutes impersonation or passing off rather than a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Complainant submits that any reliance by the Respondent on the reseller framework established in WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (Oki Data) is foreclosed by those same facts, because that framework requires, as a threshold condition, the clear and prominent disclosure of the absence of any official relationship with the trademark owner, and that, as stated in section 2.13.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, conduct amounting to impersonation or passing off can never confer rights or legitimate interests.

As to the third element, the Complainant submits that the disputed domain name was registered with detailed prior knowledge of the Complainant, its brand and its product architecture. The Complainant contends that GEEK BAR is a well-known trademark and that the element “9000” is not a generic number but a capacity designation associated with the GEEK BAR Meloso Max 9000 product line, so that the selection of that combination demonstrates that the Respondent had studied the Complainant’s product range in sufficient depth to identify a specific model by its numerical identifier, which cannot be reconciled with innocent intent. The Complainant further relies on the timing of the registration, submitting that United States consumer search interest in GEEK BAR reached its highest recorded index value of 100 in October 2023, the month immediately preceding the registration of the disputed domain name on November 9, 2023, so that the registration was made at the moment of peak consumer demand and constituted a targeted act directed at the consumer segment most likely to search for that product model by name. As to use, the Complainant submits that the Respondent has converted that targeting into full-scale commercial impersonation by operating, under the disputed domain name, a comprehensive GEEK BAR retail environment covering multiple product lines at commercial prices, reproducing the Complainant’s official imagery and promotional language, the commercial purpose of which is to capture consumer traffic generated by the Complainant’s brand and convert it into revenue for the Respondent, which constitutes use in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Complainant finally submits that the complete absence of any disclaimer or disclosure of non-affiliation, coupled with the statement of a Los Angeles address and of a sales email address at the disputed domain name, projects the appearance of an authorised commercial operation directed at United States consumers and removes any remaining doubt as to the Respondent’s bad faith.

NO ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLIANT RESPONSE HAS BEEN FILED.

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

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the 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).

The 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 Complaint was filed with the Czech Arbitration Court (the “CAC”) in accordance with the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”) and the CAC Supplemental Rules (the “Supplemental Rules”).

The CAC verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Policy, the Rules and the Supplemental Rules. The CAC formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint and the proceedings commenced. The due date for a Response was duly set.

The Respondent did not submit any Response. Accordingly, the CAC notified the Respondent of its default. The Panel was appointed in accordance with the Rules. The Panel has submitted its Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the CAC to ensure compliance with the Rules.

The language of the proceedings is English, being the language of the disputed domain name Registration Agreement.

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.

• The Complainant has never licensed, authorised or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the GEEK BAR trademark or to register the disputed domain name, and no distribution agreement, reseller arrangement or relationship of any kind exists between the Parties.
  
  
• Searches of trademark registers and corporate records have not disclosed any rights in “GEEK BAR” or “geekbar9000” standing in the Respondent’s name, and there is nothing on record to suggest that the Respondent, identified as “Jacory Gomez”, has ever been commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.
  
  
• The website to which the disputed domain name resolves does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. The website presents itself as a comprehensive GEEK BAR retail platform, displaying the Complainant’s trademark prominently in stylised lettering, offering for sale products across multiple GEEK BAR product lines at commercial prices, and reproducing the Complainant’s official product imagery and promotional language. The use is manifestly commercial and cannot amount to a legitimate non-commercial or fair use under paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.

• The website contains no disclaimer and no disclosure of any kind as to the absence of a relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant. On the contrary, the statement of an address in Los Angeles, California and of a sales e-mail address at the disputed domain name reinforces the impression of an authorised commercial operation.