WIPO Domain Name Decision DNL2019-0003 for esigaretjuul.nl
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION JUUL Labs, Inc. v. Versio B.V. Case No. DNL2019-0003 1. The Parties
The Complainant is JUUL Labs, Inc, of San Francisco, California, United States of America, represented by Taylor Wessing, the Netherlands.
The Respondent is Versio B.V. of Leeuwarden, the Netherlands. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with SIDN through AXC. 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 4, 2019. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to SIDN a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 5, 2019, SIDN transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Dispute Resolution Regulations for .nl Domain Names (the “Regulations”).
In accordance with the Regulations, articles 5.1 and 16.4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 11, 2019. In accordance with the Regulations, article 7.1, the due date for Response was March 3, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 4, 2019.
The Center appointed Willem J. H. Leppink as the panelist in this matter on March 13, 2019. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panelist has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required to ensure compliance with the Regulations, article 9.2. 4. Factual Background
The Complainant manufactures and sells vaporizer devices and accessories. These products are sold at convenience stores and other retail outlets, as well as via the website of the Complainant. The Complainant’s products have received a lot of media attention.
The Complainant owns various registrations for the JUUL trademark, including the European Union Trade Mark (“EUTM”) (word mark) JUUL with registration number 012477791 for goods in class 34, registered on July 11, 2014, and with a filing date of January 6, 2014, and the EUTM (figurative mark mark) JUUL with registration number 014944251 for goods in classes 11, 34 and 35 registered on April 13, 2016, and with a filing date of December 19, 2015 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Trademark”).
In addition, the Complaint is the owner of various domain names that incorporate the Trademark, such as and .
The Domain Name was registered on December 22, 2018, and resolves to a website that appears to offer the Complainant’s products. The Panel notes that the website does not seem to be fully functioning, as for instance, the button “Bestel online” (“Order online”) does not work (the “Website”). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
Insofar as relevant the Complainant contends the following.
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Trademark, as it incorporates the Trademark and adds the descriptive term “esigaret”. The addition of the descriptive term “esigaret” contributes to the confusion with the Complainant, as the Complainant is active in the e-cigarette business.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent is using the Domain Name to lure Internet users seeking the Complainant’s products to the Website that is not at all affiliated with the Complainant. The products sold via the Website (once the Website works) are likely to be counterfeit or at least unauthorized.
Respondent is not known by the name “Juul” and has no rights in this name.
Respondent designed the Website to capitalize on confusion between the Complainant and the Respondent. Diversion to a scam website is a not a legitimate, noncommercial, or fair use of the Domain Name.
Respondent registered the Domain Name after the Complainant had already started using the Trademark. Furthermore, the Respondent clearly had actual knowledge of the Trademark, since the Respondent uses the Domain Name to promote and/or sell fraudulent products of the Complainant. Even if the Respondent is not engaged in the sale of counterfeit or unauthorized products of the Complainant, the use of the Domain Name to divert Internet traffic and to disrupt a third-party business constitutes bad faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings
Pursuant to article 2.1 of the Regulations the Complainant must prove each of the following three elements:
a. the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to:
I) a trademark or trade name protected under Dutch law in which the Complainant has rights; or
II) a personal name registered in the General Municipal Register (“Gemeentelijke Basisadministratie”) of a municipality in the Netherlands, or the name of a Dutch public legal entity or the name of an association or foundation registered in the Netherlands under which the Complainant undertakes public ac