Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108803

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 owns several trademarks for GEEKVAPE in several countries among them the European Union Trademark registration 017584368 in class 34 registered since march 26, 2018 and in effect. 

The Complainant is a company incorporated in Shenzhen, China in 2015, engaged in the design, manufacture, and global distribution of electronic atomization devices and related accessories under the GEEKVAPE trademark.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 26, 2025 and resolved to a website showing GEEKVAPE products and information.

The website is headed "GeekVape™" and expressly describes itself as the "GeekVape – Official Website“.

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name.  

The Complainant contends that since its establishment, the Complainant has developed and marketed a broad portfolio of vaping devices and accessories under the GEEKVAPE mark, sold through its official website and authorized retail channels worldwide.

The Complainant further contends that its global market position, active in over 70 countries, is corroborated by independent market research. According to a report by Dataintelo, a market research firm, GEEKVAPE, together with SMOK and Vaporesso, collectively commanded over 28% of the global competitive landscape in the open-system vaping market in 2025, whereas GEEKVAPE alone capturing approximately 7.2% of the global market share during that period.

The Complainant, inter alia, contends, that the domain name contains in its entirety Complainant´s mark and the further non distinctive terms „us-“ being not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar. The Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain name in question, since he is not known under the name or was ever authorized to use the domain name. The domain name in question has been both acquired and is being used in bad faith as the Complainant was highly active already at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name and Complainant´s trademark is used on the website under the disputed domain name on the website markes as „official“.

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

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.

In order to succeed in its claim, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied:

(i) The disputed domain name in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name; and

(iii) The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established the fact that it has valid trademark rights for „GEEKVAPE“ for several countries.

The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the distinctive GEEKVAPE marks of the Complainant since the addition of the non-distinctive term „us“ does not prevent a finding of a sufficient confusing similarity.

The Panel therefore considers the domain name to be confusingly similar to the trademark „GEEKVAPE“, in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has no rights in the disputed domain name since the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its trademarks. Furthermore, the Respondent has no legitimate interest in the domain name since there is no indication that the Respondent is commonly known by the name “GEEKVAPE or „US-GEEKVAPE“ nor that the Respondent is using the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of related goods or services. 

The latter could be discussed since the website may even offer or advertise products from the Complainant. However, the majority opinion of panelists follows in cases where a legitimate interest of resellers of original goods to use a trademark in the domain name is in question, the test of Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, after which such use might be legitimate if the use comprise the actual offering of goods, only the trademarked goods are sold on the site, and the site is accurately and prominently disclosing the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder.

The present case does not meet the criteria of the Oki Data test, since the website under the disputed domain name create the impression of being authorized by the Complainant or even the Complainant itself whereas any other relationship to the Complainant is not disclosed in a prominent way.

The Panel therefore finds that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In view of the business activity of the Complainant in many countries and the full incorporation of the distinctive trademark of the Complainant, the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademarks when registering the disputed domain name.

The circumstances of this case, in particular the use of Complainant´s trademark on website under the disputed domain indicate that the Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name primarily with the intention of attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its potential website or other online locations, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such website or location, or of a product or service on such website or location.  

The Panel therefore considers the disputed domain name to have been registered and used in bad faith in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.