{ "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-107372", "time_of_filling": "2025-03-12 08:57:13", "domain_names": [ "geekbari.com", "geekbarcm.com", "geekbarz.com" ], "case_administrator": " Iveta Špiclová (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)", "complainant": [ "Guangdong Qisitech CO., LTD." ], "complainant_representative": "Lei Zhang (Chofn Intellectual Property)", "respondent": [ "Xiao Chun Liu" ], "respondent_representative": null, "factual_background": "

A. Complainant's Factual Allegations <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant was established in 2016 and focuses on the development, production, as well as sales of \"GEEK BAR\" disposable electronic smokable brand. \"GEEK BAR\" is known as a disposable electronic cigarettes’ atomization brand, adhering to the ultimate pursuit of quality and taste. The product sells well in Russia, the United States, the Middle East, Europe and other countries, and provides cigarette replacement solutions for hundreds of millions of users around the world.<\/p>\n

B. Respondent's Factual Allegations <\/strong><\/p>\n

The Respondent has defaulted in this UDRP administrative proceedings and has consequently made no factual allegations.
The Respondent is Xiao Chun Liu based at the address of Nan Ning Shi Xi Xiang Tang Qu Huo Ju Yi Zhi Lu, Guang Xi, Post Code 530001.<\/span><\/p>\n

The disputed domain names were registered by the Respondent, as confirmed by the Registrar:<\/p>\n

<geekbari.com>: June 7, 2024<\/p>\n

<geekbarcm.com>: December 12, 2024<\/p>\n

<geekbarz.com>: December 30, 2024<\/p>\n

As at the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain name <geekbari.com> resolved to a website that offers electronic cigarettes, which are the same product of the Complainant’s offer. As at the time of filing of the Complaint, the disputed domain names <geekbarcm.com> and <geekbarz.com> were not in use.<\/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": "

A. COMPLAINANT<\/strong><\/p>\n

Language of the Proceedings<\/strong><\/p>\n

With respect to the language of the proceedings, the Panel notes as follows:
<\/span><\/p>\n

• The Complaint was written in English;
• According to the registrar's verification response ('the RVR'), the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain names is Chinese;
• Following the RVR, and at the request of CAC, the Complainant submitted a request for English to be the language of this administrative proceedings, on the following grounds:<\/span><\/p>\n

According to 8. Art. 11 of the Rules: Language of Proceedings of the CAC's UDRP Supplemental Rules of the Czech Arbitration Court, all documents including communications made as part of the proceedings shall be made in the language of the proceedings or in English. Since the Respondent created an English website and has the ability to read English, in order to facilitate reading and understanding by CAC and subsequent expert group members, the Complainant requested CAC to agree that the language of the complaint in this case be English in accordance with 8. Art. 11 of the Rules.

<\/p>\n

Complainant´s contentions<\/p>\n

I. The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark in which the Complainant has rights<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names <geekbari.com>, <geekbarcm.com> and <geekbarz.com> are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark \"GEEK BAR\". They exactly reproduced the trademark “GEEK BAR”, with the mere addition of letters “i”, \"cm\" and \"z\".

<\/p>\n

II. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names on the grounds:<\/p>\n

The Complainant searched various national and regional trademark databases in the name of the Respondent and did not find that the Respondent had trademark rights in the name of \"GEEK BAR\". The Respondent is not in the identity of the Complainant’s distributors or partners. The Complainant has never directly or indirectly authorized the Respondent to use the trademark \"GEEK BAR\" and the corresponding domain names in any form.

<\/p>\n

III. The Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith<\/strong><\/p>\n

The Complainant claims that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names in bad faith, because:<\/p>\n

The trademark “GEEK BAR” has acquired a high degree of distinctiveness and a high level of popularity through the Complainant’s extensive use. The Respondent and the Complainant are in the same location. The content of the websites of “www.geekbari.com” is identical to the content of the Complainant’s website. Therefore, the Respondent was aware of the existence of the Complainant's trademark “GEEK BAR” prior to the registration of the disputed domain names.<\/p>\n

The three domain names were all registered by the same entity. According to WIPO Jurisprudential Overview 3.0, Section 3.1.2, it is a pattern of bad faith conduct.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Respondent has pointed the disputed domain name <geekbari.com> to the website related to the Complainant's business. The authenticity verification process of the electronic cigarettes in the Respondent’s website is similar to that of the Complainant’s website. Its webpage is exactly the same as the Complainant’s webpage. All links on its webpage point to the Complainant's website, with the purpose of deliberately creating confusion and making consumers mistakenly believe that the electronic cigarettes they purchased are from the Complainant. The disputed domain name is actually impersonating or implying the sponsorship or recognition of the trademark owner, which is consistent with paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. And in conjunction with the bad faith use described above, it is possible to find that the Respondent acted in bad faith at the time of registration of the domain name.<\/p>\n

Regarding the bad faith use of <geekbarcm.com> and <geekbarz.com>, although the disputed domain names are not in use, the Complainant argues that bad faith also arises from the Respondent's failure to use the disputed domain names. The act of \"registering a domain name without using it\" can itself be regarded as a kind of \"passive use\", which has the direct effect of preventing the Complainant from registering the same domain name with the same combination of letters. Under the passive holding doctrine, failure to use a domain name does not prevent the discovery of bad faith, which meets the \"passive possession\" principle.<\/p>\n

The Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and that the disputed domain names should be transferred to it.<\/span><\/p>\n

B. RESPONDENT<\/strong><\/p>\n

No administratively compliant Response has been filed. <\/span><\/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": "

The language of the registration agreement is Chinese. The Complainant has requested that the language of proceedings be English.<\/span><\/p>\n

The Panel is given discretion under Paragraph 11 of the Rules to determine the appropriate language of the administrative proceedings. Paragraph 10 of the Rules mentions that the Panel shall ensure that the Parties are treated with equality and that each Party is given a fair opportunity to present its case. Based on the following factors, the Panel has decided that it would be fair and equitable to all parties to have the language of the proceedings be English:<\/span><\/p>\n