Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108745

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 is the registered owner of many trademarks for GEEK BAR, e.g. European Union trademark registration no. 018225081 GEEK BAR (word), registered on August 27, 2020 for services in class 34.

It results from the Complainant’s undisputed allegations that it was established in 2016 and is active in the research and development, manufacture, and global distribution of GEEK BAR disposable e-cigarette products. In addition, it is a wholly-owned subsidiary of Shenzhen Geekvape Technology Co., Ltd.. The two entities operate as affiliated members of the same corporate group and cooperate in the development, promotion, and international marketing of the GEEK BAR brand. Since its inception, GEEK BAR products are sold in Russia, the United States, the Middle East, Europe and many other countries, providing services to hundreds of millions of users.

The disputed domain name was registered on February 13, 2025. Furthermore, the undisputed evidence provided by the Complainant proves that the disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying without authorization and prominently the Complainant’s mark and logo and purportedly offering products under the Complainant’s trademark and displaying the wording "GEEK BAR OFFICIAL SHOP".

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain name should be transferred to it.
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.

The 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 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 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.

1. Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the complainant must establish rights in a trademark or service mark, and that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the complainant has rights.

It results from the evidence provided that the Complainant is the registered owner of GEEK BAR trademarks.

Prior UDRP panels have found that a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a complainant’s trademark where the disputed domain name incorporates the complainant’s trademark in its entirety (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.1”) at section 1.7. This Panel shares this view and notes that the Complainant’s registered trademark GEEK BAR is fully included in the disputed domain name.

Although the addition of other terms (here “s” and “shop”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy.  WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8.

Finally, the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” of the disputed domain name is typically disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test (see WIPO Overview 3.1 at section 1.11.1).

In the light of the above, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights.

2. Pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, the Complainant must secondly establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy contains a non-exhaustive list of circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be proved, shall demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

In the Panel’s view, based on the undisputed allegations stated above, the Complainant has made a prima facie case that none of these circumstances are found in the case at hand and, therefore, that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

According to the Complaint, which has remained unchallenged, the Complainant has no relationship in any way with the Respondent and did, in particular, not authorize the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s trademark, e.g. by registering the disputed domain name, comprising said trademark entirely plus a generic term “shop” and the letter “s”. Furthermore, the Panel notes that there is no evidence showing that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name in the sense of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy.

Finally, it results from the Complainant’s non-contested evidence that the disputed domain name resolves to a website prominently using the Complainant’s marks and logo on which the Complainant’s goods are allegedly sold and which did not accurately and prominently disclose the lack of the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant, on the contrary, the website displays the wording "GEEK BAR OFFICIAL SHOP", suggesting official affiliation. Since this use is clearly commercial, it cannot be considered 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 or service mark at issue pursuant to paragraph 4(c)(iii) of the Policy.  Furthermore, such use cannot be qualified a bona fide offering of goods or services in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy and the Oki Data test (e.g.  Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903) as it is misleading and diverting consumers, making them erroneously believe that the Respondent is an authorized dealer, retailer, or re-seller of Complainant’s products.  This is reinforced by the following facts:  (1) the Respondent did not add any note, information or disclaimer pointing out that it actually has no relationship with the Complainant and (2) the website is accessible under a disputed domain name that comprises the Complainant’s trademark entirely which does not satisfy the requirements under the Oki Data test.  See also WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.8.1:  “Panels have recognized that resellers, distributors, or service providers using a domain name containing the complainant’s trademark to undertake sales or repairs related to the complainant’s goods or services may be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in such domain name. Outlined in the “Oki Data test”, the following cumulative requirements will be applied in the specific conditions of a UDRP case:  (i) the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue;  (ii) the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods or services;  (iii) the site must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder;  and (iv) the respondent must not try to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect the trademark. The Oki Data test does not apply where any prior agreement, express or otherwise, between the parties expressly prohibits (or allows) the registration or use of domain names incorporating the complainant’s trademark.

It is acknowledged that once the Panel finds a prima facie case is made by a complainant, the burden of production under the second element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name (see WIPO Overview 3.1 at section 2.1). Since the Respondent in the case at hand failed to come forward with any allegations or evidence, this Panel finds, in the circumstances of this case, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

3. According to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, the Complainant must thirdly establish that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Policy indicates that certain circumstances specified in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy may, “in particular but without limitation”, be evidence of the disputed domain name’s registration and use in bad faith.

One of these circumstances is that the Respondent by using the disputed domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants’ mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location (paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy).

In the present case, the Panel notes that it results from the Complainant’s documented allegations that the disputed domain name resolves to a website, allegedly selling the Complainant’s products and reproducing prominently and without authorization the Complainant’s trademark and logo and displaying the wording "GEEK BAR OFFICIAL SHOP", suggesting official affiliation.  For the Panel, it is therefore evident that the Respondent knew the Complainant’s mark and has used the disputed domain name for commercial gain, which constitutes bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

Finally, the further circumstances surrounding the disputed domain name’s registration and use confirm the findings that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith (see WIPO Overview 3.1 at section 3.2.1):

(i) the nature of the disputed domain name (i.e. entirely containing the Complainant’s registered trademark plus “shop” and "s");

(ii) the content of the website to which the disputed domain name directs (i.e.  displaying without authorization the Complainant’s registered trademark and logo and allegedly selling the Complainant’s goods and displaying the wording "GEEK BAR OFFICIAL SHOP");

(iii) a clear absence of rights or legitimate interests coupled with no credible explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name;

(iv) the respondent’s concealing its identity through a privacy service.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has therefore satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.