Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108814

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 demonstrated ownership of rights in the trademark GEEKVAPE for the purpose of standing to file a UDRP complaint.

The Complainant is the owner, amongst others, of the following trademark registrations:

- China trademark registration No. 32417461 for GEEKVAPE (figurative mark), filed on July 23, 2018, and registered on April 07, 2019, in class 34;

- United Kingdom trademark registration No. UK00917584368 for GEEKVAPE (word mark), filed on December 12, 2017, and registered on March 26, 2018, in class 34;

- European Union trademark registration No. 017584368 for GEEKVAPE (word mark), filed on December 12, 2017, and registered on March 26, 2018, in class 34;

- United States trademark registration No. 5519058 for GEEKVAPE (word mark), filed on December 14, 2017, and registered on July 17, 2018, in international class 34;

- Canada trademark registration n. 1147429 for GEEKVAPE (figurative mark), filed on February 22, 2019, and registered on October 25, 2022, in international class 34;

- Switzerland trademark registration n. 767620 for GEEKVAPE (figurative mark), filed on August 05, 2021, and registered on August 09, 2021, in international classes 34 and 35.

The Complainant is a major global manufacturer of electronic cigarettes and vaping hardware, that has established a significant presence in the vaping industry through its GEEKVAPE mark, offering a diverse range of devices and accessories.

The Complainant’s GEEKVAPE products are promoted online through the website “www.geekvape.com”, based on the domain name <geekvape.com>, registered on September 17, 2015.

The disputed domain name <geekvape-ru.shop> was registered on November 25, 2025, and resolves to a website in Russian displaying the GEEKVAPE figurative mark and offering purported GEEKVAPE products for sale.

COMPLAINANT

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its trademark GEEKVAPE, as it incorporates the trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of a hyphen and the geographical indicator “ru” (abbreviation for “Russia”), followed by the generic Top Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.shop”, which are not sufficient to escape the finding that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.

The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because: i) the Respondent has never been authorized, licensed or otherwise permitted by the Complainant to use the GEEKVAPE mark in any manner or to register or use any domain name incorporating the mark; and ii) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has no relevant trademark or trade name rights in GEEKVAPE or in a name corresponding to the disputed domain name.

The Complainant also states that this is not a case of a reseller using the trademark solely to describe the goods it sells while otherwise distinguishing itself from the trademark owner, as the Respondent has published no disclaimer of non-affiliation with the Complainant and the footer displays customer testimonials and a "1000+ five-star reviews" banner of unverified provenance, which appear to be designed to reinforce the impression of a genuine, established storefront of the Complainant.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith since: i) given the composition of the disputed domain name, it is implausible that the Respondent registered it in good faith ignoring the Complainant’s trademarks; ii) the Respondent registered the disputed domain name well after the Complainant’s earlier trademark registration for GEEKVAPE and well after the Complainant had established substantial global goodwill in the GEEKVAPE mark; and iii) the Respondent’s redirection of the disputed domain name to a website reproducing the Complainant’s figurative trademark and product catalogue suggests that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name having full knowledge of, and specifically targeting, the Complainant.

The Complainant further submits that, in view of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name in connection with a website prominently displaying the Complainant’s trademark and promoting the online sale of purported GEEKVAPE products without publishing a disclaimer of non-affiliation with the Complainant, the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark according to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

RESPONDENT

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. The Complainant has provided evidence of ownership of valid trademark registrations for GEEKVAPE.

The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark as it reproduces the trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of a hyphen and the two-letter term “ru” (which may be interpreted as an abbreviation for “Russia”) followed by the gTLD “.shop”. As stated in prior decisions rendered under the Policy, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms and of the gTLD is not sufficient to prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. 

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has established rights according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

2. With reference to the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, the Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case and that the Respondent, by not submitting a Response, has failed to provide any element from which the Respondent’s right or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name could be inferred.

The Panel notes that, based on the records, the Respondent has not been authorized or licensed by the Complainant to use its trademark GEEKVAPE. Moreover, there is no evidence that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name.

The disputed domain name resolves to a website displaying the GEEKVAPE figurative mark at the top of the home page, where purported GEEKVAPE products are offered for sale without providing any disclaimer of non-affiliation with the Complainant. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s use does not meet the conditions set forth in the decision Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc. WIPO Case No. D2001–0903 (the so-called “Oki data test”) for a reseller to succeed in claiming to be making a bona fide offering of goods or services under a disputed domain name encompassing the complainant’s trademark. Moreover, the use of the disputed domain name described above does not amount to a legitimate non-commercial or fair use.

Furthermore, the Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name is inherently misleading, since the combination of the Complainant’s trademark with the two-letter term “ru” (which, as mentioned, can be interpreted as an abbreviation for “Russia”) and the gTLD ".shop", is apt to suggest that the disputed domain name was registered and used by the Complainant or one of its affiliates to promote and offer for sale GEEKVAPE products in the Russian market.

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has demonstrated that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name according to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

3. As to bad faith at the time of the registration, the Panel finds that, in light of the prior registration and use of the trademark GEEKVAPE in connection with the Complainant’s electronic cigarette and vaping hardware, which has been promoted online through the website “www.geekvape.com”, and the explicit reference to the Complainant’s trademark and products made on the website published at the disputed domain name, the Respondent was very likely aware of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name.

In view of the use of the disputed domain name to redirect users to a website featuring the Complainant’s trademark GEEKVAPE and offering purported GEEKVAPE products for sale without providing any disclaimer of non-affiliation with the Complainant, the Panel finds that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark GEEKVAPE as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website and the products offered therein, according to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.  

Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also demonstrated that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith according to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.