Decision for dispute CAC-UDRP-108801

The disputed domain name <geekvape.org> is identical to the <GEEKVAPE> trademarks owned by the Complainant.

The addition of the ".org" domain name extension does not prevent the likelihood of confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant's trademarks. 

For the above-mentioned reasons, the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name

Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant has the burden of establishing that a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of a domain name, but this burden is light. It is sufficient in the first instance for the Complainant to allege a prima facie case, and if the evidence presented is persuasive or yields a positive inference that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden shifts to the Respondent to rebut the allegations. 

In this case, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s submitted evidence and allegations, to which the Respondent did not reply, are sufficient to establish a prima facie case of lack of rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

In particular, the Complainant denies that the Respondent has ever been authorized to use the GEEKVAPE trademark as a domain name. Moreover, the WHOIS information excludes that the Respondent is known by the sign GEEKVAPE.

Moreover, according to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name is used to promote gambling services. As a matter of fact, the Respondent is using the Complainant's trademark to exploit its distinctiveness and consumer recognition in order to drive traffic towards an unrelated online gambling service. Such conduct falls within the category of illegitimate use addressed by prior UDRP panels, under which the exploitation of a trademark's reputation to attract Internet users to unrelated commercial content cannot give rise to rights or legitimate interests. 

The requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy are satisfied.

C. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith

As far as registration in bad faith is concerned, the Panel finds particularly relevant the following circumstances:

i) the Complainant's trademarks were filed long before the registration of the disputed domain name;

ii) the disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's trademark. Previous Panels confirmed that identical domain names carry a high risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant's trademark and such circumstance is relevant in order to assess registration in bad faith; 

iii) GEEKVAPE, according to the information provided by the Complainant, is a well-known trademark and it is a made-up word.

These circumstances, in the absence of a reasonable justification by the Respondent, suggest that the Respondent was perfectly aware of the Complainant's trademarks and business at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name and that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith.

As regards use in bad faith, <geekvape.org> redirects to a website that provides online gambling platforms, including slot, casino, sports betting, and lottery services. The website reproduces, in its homepage, the GEEKVAPE trademark. The Panel agrees that such use is clearly in bad faith since the Complainant's trademark is associated with unrelated content (gambling services). In the absence of a reasonable explanation by the Respondent, the Panel agrees that such use appears to exploit the reputation of the GEEKVAPE trademark in order to attract internet users to a third party website. This conduct is considered in bad faith for the purpose of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, under which the use of a domain name to intentionally attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with a complainant's mark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement constitutes evidence of bad faith.