WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

JT International v. Daniel Smith

Case No. D2014-1306

1. The Parties

The Complainant is JT International of Geneva, Switzerland of represented by Stevens and Bolton LLP, United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (“United Kingdom”).

The Respondent is Daniel Smith of Manchester, United Kingdom.

2. The Domain Names and Registrars

The disputed domain names <ploom.co> and <ploom.mobi> are registered with Wild West Domains, LLC. The disputed domain name <ploomuk.com> is registered with Tucows Inc.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 30, 2014. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On July 30 and 31, 2014, the registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses confirming the Respondent as the registrant and providing contact details.

The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 6, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was August 26, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 27, 2014.

The Center appointed John Swinson as the sole panelist in this matter on September 2, 2014. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is JT International S.A., a Swiss corporation. It is one of the world’s largest tobacco producers and operates worldwide, including in the United Kingdom. The JTI group of companies, which the Complainant is part of, manufactures and distributes a large portfolio of tobacco brands, such as WINSTON, CAMEL, SILK CUT and MAYFAIR.

Since October 2011, the Complainant has had an exclusive license from Ploom Inc. to commercialize, market, distribute and sell certain vaporization products (the “Ploom Products”) outside the United States of America (“United States”).

As part of this arrangement, Ploom Inc. also granted the Complainant an exclusive license to use the following PLOOM trade marks in relation to Ploom Products outside the United States:

- United Kingdom Trade Mark Registration No. 00002622768 for PLOOM stylized logo mark, filed May 29, 2012; and

- European Community Trade Mark Registration No. 010919835 for PLOOM stylized logo mark, filed May 29, 2012, (collectively, the “Trade Mark”).

The Respondent is Daniel Smith of the United Kingdom. The Respondent did not file a Response, and consequently little information is known about the Respondent.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain names with the relevant registrars on November 15, 2013.

The domain names <ploom.co> and <ploom.mobi> currently direct to websites which state “This Web page parked FREE courtesy of Cheap-Registrar – pay per click links” and feature pay per clink links (“PPC links”). The disputed domain name <ploomuk.com> currently directs to a blank parking page with the logo “justhost.com” in the top left corner. It appears from the case record that in the past, the domain name <ploomuk.com> has directed to a website that purported to sell Ploom Products.

The Complainant issued proceedings against the Respondent in United Kingdom, in the Chancery Division of the High Court of Justice (in the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court). On July 11, 2014, the Complainant was granted an interim injunction, which, among other things, prevents the Respondent (and his company) from using the Trade Mark in the course of trade “in connection with the provision of tobacco products, vaporisation devices and/or any similar goods or services”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions are as follows.

Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has exclusive rights in the Trade Mark.

The disputed domain names <ploom.co> and <ploom.mobi> are identical to the Trade Mark.

The disputed domain name <ploomuk.com> is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. The dominant part of the disputed domain name is “ploom”. The additional term “uk” is simply an indicator of geographic origin, and does not materially impact the comparison.

Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names for the following reasons:

- the Respondent has not used, or made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names or a name corresponding to the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services;

- the Respondent has not been commonly known by any of the disputed domain names;

- the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names (further detailed below); and

- neither the Complainant nor Ploom Inc. have agreed or consented to the Respondent’s use of the Trade Mark.

At the time of the Complaint, the Respondent was using <ploomuk.com> to divert users to a website which purported to sell Ploom Products. The Complainant’s solicitor attempted to order some of these products from this website, to determine whether they were genuine or counterfeit. The Complainant’s solicitor was not able to place an order, and was also unable to make contact with the entity operating the website.

The “Contact Us” section identified the company responsible for the website as Ploom Direct Limited. This is a company incorporated under the laws of England and Wales (incorporated on November 15, 2013, Company Number 8777235). The Respondent is listed as the Company Secretary and sole shareholder.

The following further indicate that the Respondent’s business is not legitimate:

- refusal to respond to correspondence from the Complainant’s solicitors;

- use of a shell company (see above) and/or false addresses and contact details (including the email addresses the Respondent used to register the disputed domain names);

- failure to attend or contest the hearing of the Complainant’s application for an interim injunction; and

- ongoing breach of the court order preventing him from maintaining the website at “www.ploomuk.com”.

Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith, as evidenced by the following:

- The Trade Mark was used extensively by the Complainant and Ploom Inc. prior to November 15, 2013, when the disputed domain names were registered.

- The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.

- The Respondent registered the disputed domain names to disrupt the Complainant’s business.

- The Respondent is maintaining a website at “www.ploomuk.com” which is a copy of the official Ploom website (at “www.ploom.com”). This website is being intentionally used to attract for commercial gain Internet users looking to purchase Ploom Products from the Complainant, by creating a likelihood of confusion.

- The products at “www.ploomuk.com” may be counterfeit. At the very least, they have not gone through the Complainant’s quality checks. This also introduces safety and regulatory issues.

- Although the websites at the domain names <ploom.co> and <ploom.mobi> are inactive, it is likely that the Respondent intended to use them for the same purposes as the website at “www.ploomuk.com”, or to prevent the Complainant from registering the domain names.

- The Respondent has used a shell company and/or false addresses and contact details (including the email addresses he used to register the disputed domain names).

- At no stage has the Respondent attempted to justify or explain the legitimacy of his activities.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements enumerated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, namely:

(i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trade mark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and

(iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith.

The onus of proving these elements remains on the Complainant even though Respondent has not filed a Response.

A. Procedural Issues

The Respondent’s failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favour of the Complainant (see e.g. Verner Panton Design v. Fontana di Luce Corp, WIPO Case No. D2012-1909). However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default.

B. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to the Trade Mark.

The Panel notes that the Complainant did not provide a copy of the Co-operation Agreement dated October 2011, which it submits grants it an exclusive license to use the Trade Mark in relation to Ploom Products outside the United States. The Complainant did, however, attach the orders of the Intellectual Property Enterprise Court relating to these parties, in which His Honour Judge Hacon accepts that the Complainant is the exclusive licensee of the Trade Mark. The Panel is satisfied on balance that the Complainant has rights in the Trade Mark.

In this case, the gTLD designations “.co”, “.mobi” and “.com” at the end of the disputed domain names do not impact the assessment of confusing similarity under the Policy (see e.g. Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Limited v. Dejan Macesic, WIPO Case No. D2000-1698).

The disputed domain names <ploom.co> and <ploom.mobi> are identical to the Trade Mark.

The disputed domain name <ploomuk.com> is confusingly similar to the Trade Mark. Where a distinctive trade mark is wholly incorporated in a domain name, the addition of a geographic indicator (e.g. “UK”) will generally not distinguish the domain name from the trade mark (see e.g. Google Inc. v. Google Adwords Service at HCMC, Vietnam, WIPO Case No. D2013-0298 and Nike, Inc. v. No Owner / Ashkan Mohammadi, WIPO Case No. D2013-1297). Here, the Panel finds that the distinctive element of <ploomuk.com> is the Trade Mark. The geographic indicator “UK” simply suggests that the Complainant’s products may be purchased in the United Kingdom.

In light of the above, the Complainant succeeds on the first element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

C. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names. The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out a prima facie case. There is no evidence that the Respondent has any connection with the Trade Mark and neither the Complainant nor Ploom Inc. has given the Respondent any permission to use the Trade Mark.

Historically, the Respondent has not used the <ploomuk.com> disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. It was being used in connection with a website selling prima facie counterfeit or unauthorized Ploom Products without prominently disclosing the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder. This was clearly intended to divert users looking for products branded with the Trade Mark by trading off the reputation associated with the Trade Mark.

Currently, the websites that the <ploom.co> and <ploom.mobi> disputed domain names resolve to are commercial in nature. They are, by their own admission, parking pages, containing PPC links. This type of website is not illegitimate per se. However, in the absence of any Response from the Respondent, and in light of the surrounding circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent is not making a fair commercial use of these disputed domain names. Further, this use does not constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.

The Complainant attached evidence that the Respondent registered the company Ploom Direct Limited on the same day that he registered the disputed domain names. A company with such name could well have legitimate interest in a domain name featuring “ploom”. However, it appears that the Respondent has simply created a “fake” company name (and provided false contact details) in order to make bringing a claim against him as difficult as possible. Merely registering a company with a name similar to a domain name in dispute, at the time the domain name is registered is not conclusive evidence that the Respondent made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Further, it is not conclusive evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by any of the disputed domain names.

The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate his rights or legitimate interests, but did not do so. In the absence of a Response from the Respondent, the prima facie case established by the Complainant has not been rebutted.

In light of the above, the Complainant succeeds on the second element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy provides that the Complainant must establish that the Respondent registered and subsequently used the disputed domain names in bad faith.

In this Panel’s view, the Trade Mark is well-known, and was well-known at the time the disputed domain names were registered.

By way of example, an article dated November 21, 2013 (just six days after the Respondent registered the disputed domain names), stated that the loose-leaf vaporizer, the “Pax” produced by Ploom Inc. “has become almost ubiquitous at concerts and music festivals throughout the U.S. Named one of the year’s best products by GQ and Fast Company, it’s been unofficially endorsed by actor Alison Brie of Mad Men, rapper Big Boi, and actor-rapper Donald Glover” (Stone, Brad, “Ploom’s E-Cigarettes and Vaporizers Use Real Tobacco”, Bloomberg Businessweek, November 21, 2013). The Panel finds that it would be highly unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Trade Mark at the time it registered the disputed domain names.

The Respondent’s registration of domain names that wholly incorporate the Trade Mark indicates that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names to mislead Internet users into thinking that its websites are some way connected, sponsored or affiliated with the Complainant and its business/products, or that the Respondent’s activities are approved or endorsed by the Complainant.

The Respondent is trading off the Complainant’s substantial reputation to lead Internet users to websites which in the past have, or currently, advertise prima facie counterfeit or unauthorized Ploom Products (for commercial gain) or feature PPC links (for commercial gain). This constitutes bad faith use.

According to the Complainant, the Respondent’s company does not exist and Respondent has gone to considerable lengths to conceal its identity. The Respondent has not contested these allegations, and the evidence that the Complainant has provided in support of its allegations is convincing. Previous UDRP panels have held that the deliberate use of incorrect or ineffective contact particulars constitutes further evidence of bad faith (see e.g. WordPress Foundation v. Guo Lei aka Lei Guo, WIPO Case No. D2011-0932 and cases cited therein).

The Respondent had the opportunity to make submissions to rebut the Complainant’s allegations but failed to do so. The Panel infers from this failure to respond that the Respondent could not provide any evidence of good faith use of the disputed domain names.

In light of the above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has succeeded on the third element of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names <ploom.co>, <ploom.mobi> and <ploomuk.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

John Swinson
Sole Panelist
Date: September 5, 2014