The Complainant was established in 2016 and is engaged in the research, development, manufacture, and global distribution of disposable electronic cigarettes marketed under the GEEK BAR brand. The Complainant is a wholly owned subsidiary of Shenzhen Geekvape Technology Co., Ltd., and the two companies cooperate in the development, promotion, and international marketing of the GEEK BAR brand.<\/p>\n
The GEEK BAR brand was launched prior to the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant markets a range of disposable electronic cigarette products under the GEEK BAR brand, including the Pulse Series (among them the product line marketed as \"Pulse X\"), Geek Bar Skyview, Geek Bar Wondar, and MeLoso. According to the evidence submitted, GEEK BAR products are distributed in numerous countries, including Russia, the United States, the Middle East, and Europe.<\/p>\n
The evidence submitted by the Complainant further shows that the GEEK BAR brand has been promoted through collaborations with social media influencers, participation in industry exhibitions, and other marketing activities, and that it has received various industry awards. The Complainant also relies on market reports, Google Trends data, and online review videos as evidence that the GEEK BAR brand had acquired international recognition prior to the registration of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n
The disputed domain name resolves to a commercial website that offers jersey-style clothing for sale and prominently displays the GEEK BAR name together with the stylized GEEK BAR figurative logo. The website presents individual product listings (including items designated \"Ice-Mint Geek Bar Jersey\" and \"Rose-Pink Geek Bar Jersey\"), quotes prices in US dollars, and includes \"Contact\" and \"Wholesale\" pages. The website contains no disclaimer or other statement addressing the existence or absence of any relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant.<\/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 <<\/span>geekbarjersey.com>.<\/span><\/p>",
"no_response_filed": " FACTS ASSERTED BY THE COMPLAINANT AND NOT CONTESTED BY THE RESPONDENT:<\/span><\/p>\n The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name incorporates its GEEK BAR<\/span> trademark in its entirety. The omission of the space between the words “GEEK” and “BAR” is merely a technical consequence of the domain name system and does not affect the recognizability of the trademark.<\/p>\n The Complainant further contends that the addition of the term “jersey”<\/span> does not dispel confusing similarity but, in the circumstances of the present case, reinforces the association with the Complainant. According to the Complainant, the term “jersey” is commonly understood as referring to sports apparel or branded merchandise, and Internet users are accustomed to well-known brands offering official apparel, accessories and lifestyle merchandise under the same brand name. As a result, Internet users encountering the disputed domain name are likely to perceive it as referring to an official or authorized merchandise platform associated with the GEEK BAR brand.<\/p>\n The Complainant further submits that this is reflected in the Respondent’s actual use of the disputed domain name. According to the Complaint, the Respondent operates a commercial website offering clothing products bearing the GEEK BAR<\/span> branding, thereby reinforcing, rather than dispelling, the impression that the disputed domain name is connected with the Complainant.<\/p>\n The Complainant also submits that the addition of a descriptive term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity where the Complainant’s trademark remains recognizable within the disputed domain name. Finally, the Complainant contends that the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) ”.com”<\/span> is a standard registration requirement and should be disregarded for the purpose of assessing confusing similarity.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its GEEK BAR trademark and that the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.<\/p>\n The Complainant contends that it has not licensed, authorized or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the GEEK BAR<\/span> trademark or to register any domain name incorporating that mark. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not acquired any trademark or other rights in the term GEEK BAR<\/span>.<\/p>\n The Complainant argues that the Respondent has appropriated the GEEK BAR<\/span> trademark as the dominant and distinctive element of the disputed domain name and combined it with the term \"jersey”<\/span>, which is commonly associated with branded apparel and merchandise. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name therefore conveys the impression of an official or authorized GEEK BAR merchandise platform.<\/p>\n The Complainant further contends that the content of the website reinforces that impression. The website prominently displays the Complainant’s GEEK BAR<\/span> trademark and logo and offers clothing products bearing the GEEK BAR branding. The Complainant states that the website contains no disclaimer or other indication that it is independently operated or unaffiliated with the Complainant.<\/p>\n According to the Complainant, consumers are accustomed to brand owners expanding into apparel and lifestyle merchandise. Internet users encountering the disputed domain name and a website offering GEEK BAR-branded clothing would therefore be likely to expect the website to be operated by, authorized by or affiliated with the Complainant. The Complainant argues that the Respondent has done nothing to dispel that expectation and instead relies on it as the basis of its commercial activity.<\/p>\n The Complainant also submits that the Respondent cannot establish rights or legitimate interests by characterizing itself as a reseller or merchandise seller. Relying on Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.<\/i><\/span>, WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, the Complainant argues that a reseller must accurately and prominently disclose its relationship with the trademark owner and must not falsely suggest sponsorship or endorsement. According to the Complainant, the Respondent satisfies neither requirement because the disputed domain name itself falsely suggests official sponsorship, while the website contains no clear disclosure that the Respondent has no relationship with the Complainant.<\/p>\n The Complainant further argues that use of a domain name and website in a manner that impersonates the trademark owner or creates a false impression of affiliation cannot constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services or confer rights or legitimate interests under the Policy.<\/p>\n Accordingly, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and that the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.<\/p>\n The Complainant argues that the circumstances of the case demonstrate a deliberate attempt by the Respondent to exploit consumers’ expectation that the GEEK BAR<\/span> brand has expanded beyond its core products into official merchandise and apparel.<\/p>\n According to the Complainant, the Respondent did not combine the Complainant’s trademark with an arbitrary or unrelated term but deliberately selected the term “jersey”<\/span>, which is commonly associated with branded sports apparel and merchandise. The Complainant submits that this choice was intentional and corresponds directly to the Respondent’s subsequent use of the disputed domain name for a commercial website offering clothing products bearing the Complainant’s GEEK BAR branding.<\/p>\n The Complainant further contends that the consistency between the composition of the disputed domain name and the content of the associated website demonstrates that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with the intention of exploiting the goodwill associated with the GEEK BAR<\/span> trademark and creating the false impression of an official or authorized GEEK BAR merchandise platform.<\/p>\n The Complainant submits that consumers are accustomed to well-known brands extending their business into branded apparel, accessories and lifestyle merchandise. By combining the Complainant’s trademark with a merchandise-related term and using the disputed domain name for a website displaying the Complainant’s trademark and logo while offering products bearing the GEEK BAR<\/span> branding, the Respondent intentionally creates a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website and the products offered thereon.<\/p>\n The Complainant therefore argues that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Complainant further submits that the Respondent’s conduct constitutes impersonation and a false suggestion of affiliation within the meaning of section 3.1.4 of the WIPO Overview 3.1.<\/em><\/p>\n Accordingly, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith and that the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is satisfied.<\/p>\n Therefore, the Complainant contends that the requirements of the Policy have been met and requests transfer of the disputed domain name.<\/p>\n RESPONDENT:<\/b><\/p>\n No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/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, 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, 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": "Accepted",
"panelists": [
"Barbora Donathová"
],
"date_of_panel_decision": "2026-07-27 00:00:00",
"informal_english_translation": " The Complainant, Guangdong Qisitech Co., Ltd., specializes in the development, production, and sale of GEEK BAR disposable electronic cigarettes, which are distributed in Russia, the United States, the Middle East, Europe, and other regions.<\/p>\n To protect the GEEK BAR brand, the Complainant has proactively filed trademark applications with the trademark authorities in the countries and regions where it conducts significant business. As a result, the Complainant holds exclusive rights to the GEEK BAR trademark in multiple jurisdictions. In particular, the Complainant is the owner of the following registrations, all of which predate the registration of the disputed domain name:<\/p>\n The disputed domain name <geekbarjersey.com> was registered on December 13, 2025.<\/p>",
"decision_domains": {
"geekbarjersey.com": "TRANSFERRED"
},
"panelist": null,
"panellists_text": null
}I. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the protected mark<\/span><\/h3>\n
II. The Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name<\/span><\/h3>\n
III. The disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith<\/span><\/h3>\n
\n