The Complaint in this case, was established in 2017. At the beginning of 2020, Complainant successfully launched the ELFBAR brand and quickly became a leader in the electronic atomization and e-cigarettes industry. The Complainant now has offices or operations in more than 50 countries, cities, and regions including China, Hong Kong, the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the United States, and many other places around the world. It serves more than 10 million users around the world and more than 300,000 retail outlets worldwide. The Complainant’s authorized distributor has sold more than USD $132 million worth of ELFBAR e-cigarettes in 2022 alone. The mark is promoted through social media and, for example, the elfbar hashtag on TikTok had 1.5 billion views at the start of 2023. The various e-cigarette product models are identified by specific numerical designations such as Elf Bar 600, Elf Bar 5000, and Elf Bar 600v2.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The websites that resolve from the disputed domain names display the ELFBAR trademark and its graphic logo as well as images of the Complainant’s products.<\/p>", "other_legal_proceedings": "
The Panel is not aware of any other legal proceedings which are pending or decided and which relate to the disputed domain names.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
COMPLAINANT<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to terms in which the Complainant has rights as each one copies the ELFBAR trademark and adds words, numbers, or letters that correspond to the Complainant’s product models or the geographic locations of its business.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names where it has never been authorized to use the ELFBAR trademark and it misleads consumers by hosting websites that make extensive use of the mark as well as images of the Complainant’s products and are identical to the content of the programme operated by the Complainant.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The disputed domain names were registered and are used in bad faith as shows by the Respondent’s hosting of websites that are identical to those operated by the Complainant. Further, the Respondent’s registration of multiple confusingly similar domain names demonstrates a pattern of bad faith conduct and precludes the possibility that the Respondent may have inadvertently chosen these names.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
RESPONDENT<\/p>\n
No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
"rights": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names are 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).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
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 names (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith (within the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
Multiple Respondents<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Whois records for the ten disputed domain names identify different registrant names. However, the Complainant names these registrants as the Respondents in this proceeding and requests that the disputed domain names and the named Respondents be consolidated in a single UDRP proceeding.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Paragraph 4(f) of the Policy provides that “[i]n the event of multiple disputes between [a respondent] and a complainant, either [the respondent] or the complainant may petition to consolidate the disputes before a single Administrative Panel….” This is allowed where it “promotes the shared interests of the parties in avoiding unnecessary duplication of time, effort and expense, reduces the potential for conflicting or inconsistent results arising from multiple proceedings, and generally furthers the fundamental objectives of the Policy.” See, e.g., MLB Advanced Media, The Phillies, Padres LP v. OreNet, Inc., D2009-0985 (WIPO Sep. 28, 2009); Instant Brands LLC v. Zhen Sheng Dai, Wen Zhou Fu Jie Jin Rong Xin Xi Fu Wu You Xian Gong Si, UDRP-105512 (CAC July 7, 2023). Further, paragraph 3(c) of the Rules provides that “[t]he complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain-name holder.” UDRP panels have looked to a variety of factors in determining whether multiple domain names are, in fact, of common ownership. WIPO Overview 3.0 at par. 4.11.2. Such factors as similarities in the Whois information and similar naming conventions in the disputed domain names, etc. may lead to the conclusion that domain names with some differing registrant names are, nevertheless, owned by a single entity. See, e.g., Delta Dental Plans Association v. ICS INC., et al., D2014-0474 (WIPO June 16, 2014) (Consolidation of 31 domains allowed where “[t]he Panel notes that each of the disputed domain names follows an identical naming convention, namely (DELTA DENTAL marks+ of + state name or two-letter state abbreviation); (“while the names of the registrants of the Domain Names are different”, consolidation allowed where “[t]he Domain Names have a ‘quasi identical structure’” and “[b]oth registrants email addresses include the term ‘gamester’ before the ‘@’ symbol.”).<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
In the present case, the Registrants of the various disputed domain names are different. However, the disputed domain names use a naming pattern that involves the trademark followed by a geographic location and often the model number of one of the Complainant’s products. Further, the Whois records for the disputed domain names identify the same Registrar for all and very similar email addresses for the Registrants – all following the pattern of the Registrant’s name followed by “@cxtmail.com”. The Registrant postal addresses are also, to a large degree, grouped in pairs, two each in Hamburg, Germany; Alicante, Spain; Sevilla, Spain; and one each in Carabanchel and Valcencia, Spain. The disputed domain names were also registered in groups: seven of them on 30 April, 2024, two on 10 May, 2024, and one on 1 August, 2024. Finally, all of the disputed domain names are hosted at various servers at Cloudflare.com and the content of each resolving website is rather similar displaying the ELFBAR trademark and graphic logo as well as photographs of e-cigarette or vaping products that appear to have been copied from the Complainant’s own website. In view of these similarities between the disputed domain names the Panel finds it more likely than not that all of them are owned by the same person and that the Registrant names shown in the Whois records are aliases created by the same individual. Thus, by a preponderance of the evidence presented, the Panel finds sufficient grounds to conclude that it would be equitable and procedurally efficient to permit the consolidation of the ten disputed domain names into this single case.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
The Panel is satisfied that all other procedural requirements under UDRP were met and there is no other reason why it would be inappropriate to provide a decision.<\/p>", "decision": "Accepted", "panelists": [ "Steven Levy" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2024-11-22 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant owns the following trademark registrations:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n