Bang Energy wins

Bang Energy the popular energy drink competing against the likes of Redbull and Monster, has won the domain name via WIPO

The owner of the domain name asked for $850,000 USD when Bang approached to enquire regarding acquiring the domain name and the didn’t respond to the complaint in the WIPO case.

While I can see how the panel came to this decision if this was developed into an actual website relating to the energy markets ie Gas / Oil etc the owner probably could have kept the domain name and possibly have sold it to Bang who wanted to upgrade from there hyphen domain name

What do you think of the panel’s decision? Would you have fought it harder to keep ownership of the domain name, read the full case below?

Register Your Dot Com Domain for $4.99 – Click here to this GoDaddy Promo Deal.

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center


JHO Intellectual Property Holdings, LLC v. Jason Locke Stoll

Case No. D2020-1021

1. The Parties 

Complainant is JHO Intellectual Property Holdings, LLC, United States of America (“United States”), internally represented.

Respondent is Jason Locke Stoll, United States.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with eNom, Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 25, 2020. On April 28, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 28, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the 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 and 4, the Center formally notified Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 29, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 19, 2020. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on May 20, 2020.

The Center appointed Robert A. Badgley as the sole panelist in this matter on May 25, 2020. 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

Complainant is the intellectual property affiliate of Vital Pharmaceuticals (“Vital”), the third largest energy drink producer in the United States (with sales approaching USD 700 million in 2019). Vital’s flagship product is “Bang Energy”, purveyor of a line of energy drinks and dietary supplements. Vital sells its drinks and other products through third-party distributors and directly via its website, located at “”.

Complainant holds various trademark registrations for BANG, including United States Patent & Trademark Office Reg. No. 3,545,129 for the word mark BANG, registered on December 9, 2008, in connection with, among other things, “nutritionally fortified beverages”. The date of first use in commerce for the BANG mark is September 26, 2008.

The Domain Name was created on November 7, 2011. The Domain Name does not resolve to an active website. On some unspecified date, Complainant alleges, Respondent offered to sell the Domain Name to Complainant for USD 850,000.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant contends that it has satisfied all three elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Domain Name.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not respond to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists the three elements which Complainant must satisfy with respect to the Domain Name:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and

(ii) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

(iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Panel concludes that Complainant has rights in the mark BANG through registration and use demonstrated in the record. The Panel also finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to that mark. The mark BANG is fully incorporated within the Domain Name, accompanied by the descriptive term “energy”, the main product under the BANG mark being energy drinks.

Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(i).

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, Respondent may establish its rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, among other circumstances, by showing any of the following elements:

(i) before any notice to you [Respondent] of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Domain Name or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or

(ii) you [Respondent] (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the Domain Name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or

(iii) you [Respondent] are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.

The Panel concludes that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. Respondent has not come forward in this proceeding to explain his bona fides vis-à-vis the Domain Name. The undisputed record here is that Complainant had been selling BANG energy drinks for five years at the time the confusingly similar Domain Name was registered, that the BANG mark had been registered for nearly three years by the time the Domain Name was registered, that Respondent has made no use of the Domain Name, and that Respondent offered to sell the Domain Name for USD 850,000. Under these circumstances, it cannot be said that Respondent has any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(ii).

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy provides that the following circumstances, “in particular but without limitation,” are evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in “bad faith”:

(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or has acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out of pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or

(ii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) that Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) that by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on Respondent’s website or location.

The Panel concludes that Respondent registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of the above-quoted Policy paragraph 4(b)(i). It is undisputed on this record that Respondent sought USD 850,000 to transfer the Domain Name to Complainant. Given Respondent’s non-use of the Domain Name and Complainant’s trademark rights, this offer of sale is clearly excessive and runs afoul of paragraph 4(b)(i).

Complainant has established Policy paragraph 4(a)(iii).

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 Domain Name <> be transferred to Complainant.

Robert A. Badgley
Sole Panelist
Date: May 28, 2020Close

2 Comments on "Bang Energy wins"

  1. | 04/06/2020 at 03:01 | Reply

    If someone can ask 850K but don’t bother to respond UDRP is senseless to me. Should’ve responded and that too with 3 members panel.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this:
Read previous post:
Robbies Picks – GoDaddy Auctions 3rd of June

GoDaddy Domain Names - Zero Bids GoDaddy...