Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108813

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 has proved to own the following trademark rights, inter alia:

• Chinese trademark GEEKVAPE No.32379735 registered on April 14, 2019, designating goods in class 34;
• Chinese trademark GEEKVAPE No.32417461 registered on April 7, 2019, designating goods in class 34.
• UK trademark GEEKVAPE No. UK00917584368 registered on March 26, 2018, designating goods in class 34.
• European union trademark GEEKVAPE No.017584368 registered on March 26, 2018, designating goods in class 34.
• S. trademark GEEKVAPE No.5519058 registered on July 17, 2018, designating goods in class 34.
• Swiss trademark GEEKVAPE No.767620 registered on August 9, 2021, designating goods in classes 34 and 35.

The Complainant, Shenzhen Geekvape Technology Co., Ltd., is a company incorporated in Shenzhen, China in 2015, engaged in the design, manufacture, and global distribution of electronic atomization devices and related accessories. Its product range includes, among others, the AEGIS and WENAX series. The Complainant markets its products internationally and has participated in industry exhibitions.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name <geekvape-store.com> on November 3, 2024.

ATTENTION! No administratively compliant Response has been filed. For information regarding the notification of the Respondent, please see: "Notification of delivery" form. Please include either a brief summary of the Complainant’s contentions, or keep a short information provided at the end of this paragraph. You may also include a brief summary in another section, please include a referral to such section.
Possible information:
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.

Identity (paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy)

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name <geekvape-store.com> is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s GEEKVAPE trademark.

The disputed domain name incorporates the GEEKVAPE trademark in its entirety with the addition of a hyphen and the descriptive term “store”. Such addition does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, as the GEEKVAPE trademark remains clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name (See Instagram, LLC v. saleh alfadaghi, Case No. D2021-2701).

Thus, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

Absence of Rights or Legitimate Interests (paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy)

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant asserted that the Respondent has never been granted a license, or any other way been authorized, to use the GEEKVAPE trademark or register the disputed domain name. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name or has any trademark rights corresponding to it.

Furthermore, the disputed domain name resolves to an online store displaying products bearing the Complainant’s GEEKVAPE trademark, alongside branding associated with GEEK BAR, an affiliated brand within the Complainant’s corporate group. The website does not disclose the Respondent’s lack of affiliation with, or authorization from, the Complainant.

In these circumstances, the Panel does not consider the Respondent’s use to constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.

Finally, the Respondent had the opportunity to provide its arguments in support of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. However, by failing to file a response, the Respondent has missed this opportunity and the Panel is entitled to draw such inferences from the Respondent's failure as it considers appropriate in accordance with Paragraph 14 of the Rules.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the 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.

Bad faith (paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

The disputed domain name was registered on November 3, 2024, several years after the Complainant had established rights in the GEEKVAPE trademark and incorporates that trademark in its entirety together with the term “store”, which may be associated with the Complainant’s commercial activities. The Panel finds that the Respondent cannot reasonably pretend it was intending to develop a legitimate activity through the disputed domain name. The composition of the domain name, combined with the content of the resolving website, makes it highly unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when registering it.

The website offers products bearing the GEEKVAPE trademark and refers to brands and products associated with the Complainant’s corporate group, without clearly disclosing the Respondent’s lack of affiliation. The Panel considers that such use is intended to create an impression of association with the Complainant and to attract Internet users for commercial gain.

In the Panel’s opinion, this shows that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.