{
    "case_number": "CAC-UDRP-108804",
    "time_of_filling": "2026-07-09 10:56:27",
    "domain_names": [
        "geekvapeshop.com"
    ],
    "case_administrator": "  Iveta Špiclová   (Czech Arbitration Court) (Case admin)",
    "complainant": [
        "Shenzhen Geekvape Technology Co., Ltd."
    ],
    "complainant_representative": "Lei Zhang (Chofn Intellectual Property)",
    "respondent": [
        "Kerry Roland"
    ],
    "respondent_representative": null,
    "factual_background": "<p><span class=\"gs_tkn\">Founded<span>&nbsp;<\/span><\/span><span class=\"gs_tkn\">in 2015, <\/span>Shenzhen Geekvape Technology Co., Ltd (\"<span class=\"gs_tkn\">the Complainant\") has developed and marketed a broad portfolio of vaping devices and accessories under the GEEKVAPE mark, sold through its official website and authorized retail channels worldwide. <span>In August 2021, the Complainant announced an investment of several billion yuan (approximately US$1.55 billion) to construct an intelligent manufacturing industrial park in the Guangdong-Hong Kong-Macao Greater Bay Area, with the support of the Shenzhen Municipal Government, as part of its long-term growth strategy to serve customers across more than 70 countries and regions.&nbsp;&nbsp;<\/span><\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>The Complainant informs that it has also maintained a consistent presence at major international trade exhibitions. At the World Vape Show held in Dubai in June 2022, an event attended by more than 1,000 exhibiting businesses and over 80,000 attendees, the Complainant showcased its full product range.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>Furthermore, according to the Complainant, the GEEKVAPE's market position in the United Kingdom is corroborated by independent third-party survey data. Actually, a consumer survey conducted by YouGov and published in a report by Action on Smoking and Health (ASH) in August 2023 identified GEEKVAPE as one of the most preferred open-system vaping brands among UK consumers.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>In addition, the Complainant's standing within the global vaping industry was recognized at the Vapouround Global Award, held in Birmingham, United Kingdom in May 2023 and widely regarded within the trade as \"the Oscars of the global vape industry.\" Among approximately 650 participating vape companies, the Complainant was honored with the \"Industry Leader\" award, together with four additional awards for Best Tank MTL, Best Mod, Best Beverage, and Best Shisha Flavour.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>In order to highlight the GEEKVAPE trademark&rsquo;s global reputation, the Complainant also cites the partnership between the Complainant and Paris Saint-Germain Football Club, one of the world's most prominent professional football clubs. The Complainant first became an official partner of Paris Saint-Germain in 2021, and the partnership was renewed in January 2023, as confirmed on Paris Saint-Germain's official website and widely reported by international media.<\/span><\/p>\n<p><span>The Complainant trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name &lt;geekvapeshop.com&gt; which was registered on December 6, 2023.<\/span><\/p>\n<p>The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name &lt;geekvapeshop.com&gt; is confusingly similar to the Complainant's GEEKVAPE trademark. Actually, the Complainant outlines that the disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant's GEEKVAPE trademark in its entirety, followed by the term \"shop.\" In the Complainant's view, the addition of this generic term does nothing to distinguish the domain name from the Complainant's mark.<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant also contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. Actually, according to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the Respondent does not have trademark rights in names such as GEEKVAPE or GEEK VAPE SHOP. In addition, the Complainant informs that the Respondent is not connected to, nor affiliated with, Shenzhen Geekvape Technology Co., Ltd and that the same Respondent has never received license or consent to use the GEEKVAPE trademark. In addition, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services. In particular, the Complainant has demonstrated that the website formerly resolving at the disputed domain name, was structured, branded, and marketed as a dedicated online retailer of the Complainant's products. In particular, the site's homepage invited visitors to \"BUY GEEKVAPES ONLINE\" and \"SHOP NOW,\" and featured extensive use of the Complainant's GEEKVAPE mark and product-line names throughout, including AEGIS, ZEUS, WENAX, OBELISK, L200, and T200, series names that correspond precisely to the Complainant's own official product lines. Furthermore, the website contains the following fraudulent statement: \"Always ensure to purchase from authorized sellers like us to guarantee the authenticity of your GeekVape Aegis device\".<\/p>\n<p>The Complainant also submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith. Actually, considering that the GEEKVAPE trademark is highly distinctive and was fairly well known at the time the disputed domain name was registered, the Complainant finds it very unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant&rsquo;s activities or of its GEEKVAPE mark on December 2023 when it decided to register the disputed domain name which merely combines the GEEKVAPE mark with the generic term \"shop\".<\/p>\n<p>Further, according to the Complainant, the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith. In particular, the Complainant notes that, although the disputed domain name is currently inactive, it previously resolved to a website designed and built to lead internet users to believe that the respondent was an authorized seller of the Complainant's products. Said website provided no indication or disclaimer in a prominent manner clarifying that its operator was unaffiliated with the Complainant. In the Complainant&rsquo;s view, such use of the disputed domain name was liable to mislead consumers into believing that the website was operated by, endorsed by, or otherwise connected with the Complainant, which was not the case. The Complainant also insists that currently the disputed domain name is inactive but that this circumstance does not prevent a finding of bad faith use under the doctrine of passive holding.<\/p>\n<p class=\"font-claude-response-body break-words whitespace-normal\" data-sourcepos=\"3:1-3:137;133-269\"><span>Finally, the Complainant notes that the WHOIS record for the disputed domain name was privacy-protected at the time of filing. According to the Complainant, while the use of a privacy service is not in itself indicative of bad faith, it is a further circumstance to be properly considered in the totality of the evidence set out above.<\/span><\/p>",
    "other_legal_proceedings": "<p>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": "<p>The Complainant&acute;s contentions are summarized above.<\/p>\n<p>No administratively compliant Response has been filed.<\/p>",
    "rights": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": "<p>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": [
        "Guido Maffei"
    ],
    "date_of_panel_decision": "2026-08-12 00:00:00",
    "informal_english_translation": "<p>The Complainant is the owner, amongst others, of the following trademark registrations:&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p>- Chinese registration No. 32379735 for GEEK VAPE, filed on July 27, 2018 and registered on April 14, 2019 in class 34;<\/p>\n<p>- Chinese registration No. 32417461 for GEEKVAPE, filed on July 23, 2018 and registered on April 6, 2019 in class 34;<\/p>\n<p>- UK registration No. UK00917584368 for GEEKVAPE, filed on December 11, 2017 and registered on March 26, 2018 in class 34;<\/p>\n<p>- EU registration No. 17584368 for GEEKVAPE, filed on December 11, 2017 and registered on March 26, 2018 in class 34;<\/p>\n<p>- U.S. registration No. 5519058 for GEEKVAPE, filed on December 14, 2017 and registered on July 17, 2018 in class 34;<\/p>\n<p>- Canadian registration No. 1147429 for GEEKVAPE, filed on February 2, 2019 and registered on October 25, 2022 in classes 9 and 34; and<\/p>\n<p>- Swiss registration No. 767620 for GEEKVAPE, filed on August 5, 2021 and registered on August 9, 2021 in classes 34 and 35.<\/p>",
    "decision_domains": {
        "geekvapeshop.com": "TRANSFERRED"
    },
    "panelist": null,
    "panellists_text": null
}