The Complainant, Guangdong Qisitech CO., LTD., a Chinese company, was established in 2016 and focuses on the development, production and sales of the GEEK BAR-branded disposable electronic e-cigarette. The Complainant claims to sell GEEK BAR-branded goods in Russia, the United States, the Middle East, Europe and other countries, and to provide cigarette replacement solutions for hundreds of millions of users around the world.<\/p>\n
The GEEK BAR brand was founded in 2005 and is now independently operated by the Complainant.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name <geekbark.com > was registered on October 21, 2024.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name resolves to a page sponsored by Spotify where the message “this store does not exist” is displayed. From the case file it appears that at the time the complaint was filed the disputed domain name resolved to a website promoting and offering for sale clothing and accessories for dog owners .<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is registered in the name of Soraya Braik Franzolim, with the organization named as Geek Bark. The Respondent, self-represented, appears to be a private person residing in Brazil doing business as Geek Bark.<\/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 name.<\/p>", "no_response_filed": "
The Complainant contends that:<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name, which contains the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety with the addition of the letter “k” at the end of it, is confusingly similar to its trademark “GEEK BAR”.<\/p>\n
The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and that the Respondent is not affiliated with or authorized by the Complainant in any way. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name, and is not related to the Complainant’s business in any way. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor has any business dealings with, the Respondent. Furthermore, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is a misspelt version of the GEEK BAR trademark, and that intentional misspellings of third parties’ intellectual property (commonly known as “typosquatting”) does not constitute fair use and is the antithesis of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of a domain name.
The Complainant affirms that the content displayed on the website pointed to by the disputed domain name is unrelated to the business operated by the Complainant. However, the fact that the Respondent did not clearly state on this website that it has no connection with the GEEK BAR trademark can be seen as an inference that the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name purely to take advantage of the Complainant's popularity. <\/p>\n
The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.<\/p>\n
The Complainant contends that the GEEK BAR trademark has acquired a high level of popularity due to its extensive use and that the GEEK BAR trademark does not correspond to any word in common use in French, English or any other language. Therefore, owing to the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and reputation, it is shown that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s rights in the GEEK BAR trademark when it registered the disputed domain name.
The Complainant further contends that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to sell clothing, water cups and other goods in order to take advantage of the popularity of the Complainant's trademark.<\/p>\n
The Respondent contends that:<\/p>\n
The Respondent was not aware of the GEEK BAR trademark at the time it registered the disputed domain name.
The choice of the name “geekbark” was made independently and in good faith, based on the combination of the words \"geek\" (which refers to the geek\/pop culture) and \"bark\" (i.e. the sound a dog makes), which reflects the identity of the Respondent’s business, which sells clothing and accessories for dog owners.
The name GEEK BARK was thus chosen independently and without any intention of infringing on the GEEK BAR trademark.
Before registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent conducted a preliminary search to check for any trademark registrations that might prevent its use, and found no such registrations for GEEK BARK.
The business sectors in which the two brands operate are completely distinct, with no competition between the products offered, namely the Respondent is in the pet market, focusing on clothing and accessories for dog owners, whereas the Complainant is in the field of electronic cigarettes.
The two signs are conceptually different and target completely different audiences, and thus there is no possibility of confusion for the public.
The Complainant’s arguments disregard the fact that “bark” is a stand alone word with its own identity, directly linked to the purpose of the Respondent’s business.
There was never any bad faith in the use of the disputed domain name.
Finally, to demonstrate its own good faith, the Respondent voluntarily took the website offline and responded to the Complainant’s complaint the day after receiving it.
The Respondent thus asks for the complaint to be dismissed.<\/p>",
"rights": "
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).<\/p>", "no_rights_or_legitimate_interests": "
The Complainant has not, 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).<\/p>", "bad_faith": "
The Complainant has not, 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).<\/p>", "procedural_factors": "
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.<\/p>", "decision": "Rejected", "panelists": [ "Fabrizio Bedarida" ], "date_of_panel_decision": "2025-04-04 00:00:00", "informal_english_translation": "
The Complainant is the owner of several «GEEK BAR » registered trademarks, including the following:<\/p>\n
International trademark GEEK BAR (word) registration No. 1676896, registered on June 8, 2022, designating the Syrian Arab Republic, and the Islamic Republic of Iran;<\/p>\n
United States trademark GEEK BAR (word) registration No. 6275589, registered on February 23, 2021;<\/p>\n
European trademark GEEK BAR (word) registration No. 018225081, registered on August 26, 2020.<\/p>", "decision_domains": { "geekbark.com": "REJECTED" }, "panelist": null, "panellists_text": null }