ESTTA Tracking number:
`
`ESTTA1372351
`
`Filing date:
`
`07/20/2024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`92084729
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`Fire Lyfe LLC
`
`LILLIAN TAYLOR STAJNBAHER
`240 E PALMETTO PARK RD #300B
`BOCA RATON, FL 33432
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: Legal@LillianTaylor.com
`Secondary email(s): admin@lilliantaylor.com
`954-319-3153
`
`Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`
`Lillian Taylor Stajnbaher
`
`Lstajnbaher@tmdi.law, admin@lilliantaylor.com, legal@lilliantaylor.com
`
`/lilliantaylorstajnbaher/lths/072024/
`
`07/20/2024
`
`FIRE LYFE REPLY to OPPOSITION to MOTION to SUSPEND v2.pdf(174100
`bytes )
`EXHIBIT A to Rply Mn2Suspend Cigarette Market.pdf(737221 bytes )
`EXHIBIT B 2Rply Mn2Suspend Jiang and Firelyfe Booths.pdf(504827 bytes )
`Exhibit C 2Rply Mn2Suspend Consumer Confusion.pdf(504931 bytes )
`
`
`
`ESTTA1372351
`
`Filing date:
`
`07/20/2024
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`Proceeding no.
`
`92084729
`
`Party
`
`Correspondence
`address
`
`Submission
`
`Filer's name
`
`Filer's email
`
`Signature
`
`Date
`
`Attachments
`
`Defendant
`Fire Lyfe LLC
`
`LILLIAN TAYLOR STAJNBAHER
`240 E PALMETTO PARK RD #300B
`BOCA RATON, FL 33432
`UNITED STATES
`Primary email: Legal@LillianTaylor.com
`Secondary email(s): admin@lilliantaylor.com
`954-319-3153
`
`Motion to Suspend for Civil Action
`
`Lillian Taylor Stajnbaher
`
`Lstajnbaher@tmdi.law, admin@lilliantaylor.com, legal@lilliantaylor.com
`
`/lilliantaylorstajnbaher/lths/072024/
`
`07/20/2024
`
`FIRE LYFE REPLY to OPPOSITION to MOTION to SUSPEND v2.pdf(174100
`bytes )
`EXHIBIT A to Rply Mn2Suspend Cigarette Market.pdf(737221 bytes )
`EXHIBIT B 2Rply Mn2Suspend Jiang and Firelyfe Booths.pdf(504827 bytes )
`Exhibit C 2Rply Mn2Suspend Consumer Confusion.pdf(504931 bytes )
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`BEFORE THE TRADEMARK TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`Respondent.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`OSF IP LLC
`
`
`FIRE LYFE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Cancellation No.: 92084729
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO PETITIONER'S OPPOSITION TO
`MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS
`
`Respondent FIRE LYFE INC submits this Reply to Petitioner's Opposition to Respondent's
`
`Motion to Suspend Proceedings. For the reasons set forth below, Respondent respectfully requests
`
`that the Board grant the motion to suspend proceedings.
`
`
`
`I.
`
`THE PARTIES ARE THE SAME
`
`The Petitioner herein and the Defendants in the District Court matter are sufficiently related to
`
`warrant a suspension, the former being the alter-ego of the latter.
`
`The recognition of an alter-ego is an equitable tool used to vindicate the rights of those damaged
`
`by the abuse of the corporate form. Successor Agency to Former Emeryville Redevelopment
`
`Agency v. Swagelok Co. (N.D.Cal. 2019) 364 F. Supp. 3d 1061. Generally, the alter-ego or single-
`
`enterprise doctrine, will be applied to two related corporations when: (1) there is such a unity of
`
`
`
`interest and ownership that the separate personalities of the corporations no longer exist, or are
`
`merged, so that one corporation is a mere adjunct of the other or the two companies form a single
`
`enterprise, and (2) inequitable results will follow if the corporate separateness is respected, and
`
`the acts in question are treated as those of one corporation alone. Tran v. Farmers Group, Inc.
`
`(2002) 140 Cal.App.4th 1202.
`
`
`
`Relevant to determining whether unity of interest exists in a case, such that the corporations’
`
`separate personalities are nonexistent, include factors such as identical directors and officers,
`
`commingling of assets, identical equitable ownership in the two entities, as well as where the
`
`corporations are organized and controlled, and that one corporation’s affairs are so conducted as
`
`to make it merely an instrument, agent, conduit, or adjunct of the other. Shaoxing County Huayue
`
`Import & Export v. Bhaumik (2011) 191 Cal.App.4th 1189; Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration
`
`Partners, L.P. v. Superior Court (1997) 60 Cal.App.4th 248; McLaughlin v. L. Bloom Sons Co.
`
`(1962) 206 Cal.App.2d 848.
`
`
`
`Jiang, a defendant in a California district court case, is both the founder and CEO of his co-
`
`defendant ONLY SMOKE FIRE LLC, and founder and CEO of OSF IP LLC. The latter was
`
`formed only days after receipt by the attorney for both Jiang and ONLY SMOKE, of notice of the
`
`pending district court suit. Jiang transferred his ownership of trademark registrations to OSF IP
`
`LLC thereafter. The activities of OSF IP LLC — marketing and exploiting the FIRE mark for
`
`vapes, goods closely related to those of FIRE LYFE — are identical to the activity complained of
`
`in the District Court. Upon being served, rather than affirmatively defending that the FIRE LYFE
`
`GLOBAL registrations were null and void within the already pending matter, the instant petition
`
`
`
`to cancel was filed. Thus, Petitioner herein is but an alter ego of Jiang and ONLY SMOKE FIRE
`
`LLC, adding expense and unnecessary complexity to an already pending matter, to harass, delay,
`
`and economically oppress.
`
`
`
`II. THE GOODS ARE HIGHLY RELATED
`
`The District Court matter was filed because Petitioner introduced vaping device, which are so
`
`highly related to Respondent’s registered goods, cigarette, cigars, cigarillos, hemp rolling papers,
`
`and other smoker’s articles, that not only is there a likelihood of confusion between
`
`Defendants Jiang and ONLY SMOKE FIRE devices, and FIRE LYFE GLOBAL’s goods under
`
`15 U.S.C. § 1052(d), but actual confusion has and continues to result. Articles and studies have
`
`established that a significant number of smokers transition to vaping. This migration links the two
`
`categories directly, as consumers who used to purchase cigarettes and other smoking products are
`
`now buying vaping devices and e-liquids. These studies highlight factors such as shared consumer
`
`base, similar product usage, and overlapping market dynamics that underscore the relationship
`
`between smoking and vaping products. These connections are critical in understanding how the
`
`marketing, regulation, and legal considerations for one category can impact the other. In proof
`
`thereof, Exhibit A, an Article about these developments in the Cigarette Market, is attached hereto
`
`and incorporated.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner and the Defendants in the District Court matter marketed FIRE and ONLY SMOKE
`
`FIRE products at the same trade show where Respondent had already marketed, and established
`
`consumers. This trade show was particularly focused on tobacco and nicotine products.
`
`Petitioner’s entry into and continuation of marketing at the same trade show with the same name,
`
`
`
`leading to consumer confusion. Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated, demonstrates the
`
`presence of both parties at the same trade show.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respondent consistently received customer reports expressing confusion and disbelief due to
`
`Petitioner's prominent use of the FIRE mark. Exhibit C, demonstrating actual consumer confusion,
`
`is attached hereto and incorporated.
`
`
`
`
`
`Registrant is entitled to have protection of its registrations extend to the natural scope of
`
`expansion. See In re Iolo Technologies, LLC, 2015 TTAB LEXIS 288 (TTAB 2015) (finding that
`
`tobacco and electronic cigarettes are related goods).
`
`
`
`
`
`III. JUDICIAL ECONOMY WILL BE SERVED BY SUSPENSION
`
`Petitioner argues that a suspension will not serve judicial economy, while the instant petition was
`
`filed during pendency of the district court case, segregating issues that could have been an decided
`
`in the same matter, into separate matters. It is Petitioner, thus, that has exacerbated and
`
`compounded the use of judicial resources through filing this petition. Further, it is Petitioner’s
`
`reliance upon a fraudulently procured renewal that gave rise to the need to amend to add the fraud
`
`claim in the initiating District Court matter.
`
`
`
`
`
`The Board’s well-settled policy is to suspend when parties are involved in a civil action that could
`
`be dispositive or have bearing upon a Board case. Holy Spirit Association for Unification of World
`
`Christianity v. World Peace and Unification Sanctuary Inc. 2019 US Dist Lexis 122744, 2019 WL
`
`3297469, citing General Motors Corp. Cadillac Club Fashion 22 USPQ2d 1933, 1937 (1992). It
`
`
`
`is FIRE LYFE GLOBAL’s activity and status at the time of the filing of the complaint that is
`
`determinative of infringement, not Mr. Jiang’s maneuver to effect a nunc pro tunc shield with a
`
`third party’s alleged rights (See Morehouse Mfg. Corp. v. J. Strickland & Co., 407 F.2d 881
`
`(CCPA 1969); and in particular, rights that were (1) abandoned and (2) initially arose well after
`
`the priority date to which Respondent is entitled, having been granted permission from the first
`
`common law user in interstate commerce, in or around the turn of the century. More than likely,
`
`the instant Petition will become moot as a result of the District Court’s action, infringement not
`
`being activity that gives rise to standing. Blue Athletic Assn. Inc. v. Nordstrom, Inc. 97 USPQ2d
`
`1706 (2020); PHC v. Pioneer Health 75 F.3d 75 (1996).
`
`
`
`
`
`Further, the view of the TTAB is not binding upon the federal courts as any Board result found
`
`unsatisfactory is subject to review on appeal; whereas the Court may bind the TTAB. Buti
`
`v. Peros S.R.L. 139 F.3d 98, 105 (2d Cir 1998); Trademark Act § 21, 15 U.S.C. § 1071, TBMP §
`
`901.
`
`
`
`
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons stated above, under the alter-ego theory, Petitioner is essentially identical to Jiang
`
`and ONLY SMOKE FIRE LLC. This conclusion is supported by factors such as shared ownership,
`
`the immediate establishment of OSF IP LLC following notification of litigation, and continuation
`
`of the same objectionable use of FIRE after actual notice served and received of actual confusion.
`
`Said use of the FIRE trademark indicates intentional infringement on the Respondent’s rights,
`
`activity over which the TTAB has no authority to remedy. Suspending the proceedings would
`
`enhance judicial efficiency by consolidating integrally related issues in one court, avoiding
`
`
`
`duplicate use of resources, consistent with Board policy and established legal principles.
`
`Consequently, Respondent respectfully asks the Board to approve the Motion to Suspend
`
`proceedings until the district court case is resolved.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TRADEMARKS DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL INC
`
`By:
`
` /lilliantaylorstajnbaher/lths/072024/
`
`
`
`LILLIAN TAYLOR ŠTAJNBAHER
`CAL. BAR NO. 126753
`240 W Palmetto Park Road, Suite 320
`Boca Raton, Florida 33432
`Tel: 954-319-3153
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing “RESPONDENT’S REPLY TO
`
`PETITIONER'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO SUSPEND PROCEEDINGS” was served on
`
`counsel of record for Petitioner via email on the below date.
`
`
`
`Date: July 20, 2024
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`TRADEMARKS DOMESTIC INTERNATIONAL INC
`
`By:
`
` /lilliantaylorstajnbaher/lths/072024/
`
`
`
`LILLIAN TAYLOR ŠTAJNBAHER
`CAL. BAR NO. 126753
`240 W Palmetto Park Road, Suite 320
`Boca Raton, Florida 33432
`Tel: 954-319-3153
`
`
`
` Attorney for Respondent,
` FIRE LYFE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT A
`https://tobaccotactics.org/article/e-cigarettes/
`E-cigarettes
`
`This page was last edited on 02 February 2023, at 3:55 am.
`
` CiteCite
`
`As the harms from conventional products have become better
`understood, and tobacco control measures have been put in
`place, the cigarette market – from which tobacco companies
`make most of their profits – has started to shrink. To secure the
`industry’s longer-term future, transnational tobacco companies
`(TTCs) have invested in, developed and marketed various newer
`nicotine and tobacco products.11
`
`Since the early 2000s TTCs have developed interests in e-
`cigarettes (also known as electronic delivery systems, or ENDS),
`heated tobacco products (HTPs), snus and nicotine pouches.
`Companies have referred to these types of product as ‘next
`generation products’ (NGPs) although terminology changes over
`time.
`
`•• See the Product Terminology page for more details,
`including terms favoured by the industry.
`
`This page gives an overview of TTCs interests in e-cigarettes,
`which have been acquired, developed and sold by these
`companies since 2012. Products produced by other companies
`which do not have links to TTCs are not covered on
`TobaccoTactics.
`
`We link to further pages giving more detailed information about
`each company’s products, market share and business strategy,
`including methods used to promote their products around the
`world. We also point to examples of lobbying activity conducted
`
`
`
`by, and on behalf of, tobacco companies, in order to influence
`regulation around e-cigarettes.
`
`•• For answers to some frequently asked questions about e-
`cigarettes see E-cigarettes: The Basics
`
`There is ongoing scientific and policy debate about the role of
`these products in tobacco control, with concerns around long
`term health effects, marketing to youth, and how this
`diversification may help the industry to build credibility with
`policy makers.11 22 Products are often publicly linked to tobacco
`companies’ harm reduction strategies. However, research
`updates on, and analysis of, the potential health benefits/risks
`of e-cigarettes are outside the scope of TobaccoTactics.
`
`Image 1: Transnational tobacco companies’ main tobacco and
`
`e-cigarette brands (Images source: IMB, PMI, BAT and JTI
`
`corporate websites, accessed October 2022)
`
`Tobacco Companies Enter the
`
`
`
`E-cigarette Market
`
`Tobacco companies began buying existing e-cigarette brands
`and developing their own e-cigarette products from 2012. At the
`time, the global e-cigarette market was highly fragmented and
`dominated by independent companies, with the Financial Times
`estimating in June 2013 that the market was worth $3 billion.33
`
`Tobacco companies were well placed to take advantage of this
`fast growing market, as they had established distribution points
`and the resources to cover the costs of marketing. They were
`also in a position to meet the financial and legal demands that
`would likely come with any future regulation of e-cigarettes (see
`below).33
`
`In 2012 and 2013 there was a flurry of tobacco company
`investment in e-cigarettes, both in the United Kingdom (UK)
`and in the United States (US), a trend which continued in
`subsequent years.
`
`•• For a diagram showing the tobacco industry’s entry into
`the e-cigarette market see E-cigarettes: Industry
`Timeline.
`
`By 2018, British American Tobacco (BAT), Imperial Brands,
`Japan Tobacco International (JTI), and to a lesser degree Philip
`Morris International (PMI), all had their own ‘flagship’ e-
`cigarette brands, and were expanding their global markets. In
`the same year, Altria bought a minority stake in US e-cigarette
`manufacturer JUUL Labs. Market research company
`Euromonitor International estimated that the e-cigarette
`market had quadrupled in value, from under US$5 billion in 2013
`to more than US$20 billion in 2019.44 55
`
`British American Tobacco
`
`
`
`British American Tobacco (BAT) launched Vype in July 2013.
`This e-cigarette was originally developed by CN Creative, a
`start-up acquired by BAT in December 2012 and later merged
`into Nicoventures.66 77 After forming a ‘strategic partnership’
`with US tobacco company Reynolds American Inc (RAI) in 2014,
`BAT acquired the whole company and its Vuse range of e-
`cigarettes in 2017. For more information, see Reynolds
`American Inc.
`
`BAT went on to acquire more independent e-cigarette
`companies, and developed a range of products under the Vype
`and Vuse brands. In 2020, BAT began consolidating the two
`brands as Vuse.88 99 1010 In 2022 it launched a “disposable” product
`Vuse Go (see below).
`
`•• For detailed information on BAT’s e-cigarettes and tactics
`see E-cigarettes: British American Tobacco and E-
`cigarettes: BAT’s Vype and Vuse.
`
`Imperial Brands
`
`Imperial Brands‘ subsidiary Fontem Ventures acquired
`Dragonite in August 2013, previously owned by Hon Lik, the
`Chinese pharmacist who claims to have invented the e-
`cigarette. In July 2014, as part of Reynolds’s acquisition of
`Lorillard, Imperial bought blu.1111
`
`Lorillard was the third largest cigarette manufacturer in the US
`at the time it acquired the e-cigarette company ‘blu ecigs’ in
`2012.1212 In 2013, it entered the UK market by taking over ‘Skycig’,
`a leading independent brand, which was then rebranded as ‘blu
`ecigs’.1313 1414 When Reynolds acquired Lorillard, blu was sold to
`Imperial to avoid antitrust concerns.1111 1515
`
`In February 2015, Imperial launched its own e-cigarette ‘Jai’ in
`Europe.1616 However blu became Imperial’s flagship brand.
`
`
`
`•• For more on Imperial’s e-cigarettes and tactics see E-
`cigarettes: Imperial Brands.
`
`Japan Tobacco International
`
`Japan Tobacco International (JTI) bought UK e-cigarette brand
`E-lites in June 2014 from Zandera.1717 1818 1919
`
`After acquiring US e-cigarette company ‘Logic’ in July 2015, E-
`Lites was rebranded as Logic, and this became JTI’s flagship
`brand.2020 2121
`
`•• For more on JTI’s e-cigarettes and tactics see E-cigarettes:
`Japan Tobacco International.
`
`Philip Morris International
`
`Philip Morris International (PMI) was the last of the
`international tobacco companies to enter the e-cigarette
`market. It announced in December 2013, that it was teaming up
`with Altria to market electronic cigarettes and other tobacco
`products it described as “reduced risk”.2222 PMI gained the right
`to exclusively sell Altria’s e-cigarettes outside the United States.
`In 2014, PMI acquired UK company Nicocigs, the owner of the
`‘Nicolites’ brand.2222 2323 After rebranding ‘Nicolites’ as ‘Nicocig’,
`PMI went on to develop its own e-cigarette IQOS Mesh, which
`went on sale in the UK in 2018, alongside IQOS Heated Tobacco
`Products.2424 2525 2626
`
`Mesh was relaunched as VEEV in 2020. In 2022, PMI launched a
`“disposable” e-cigarette called VEEBA (see below). However,
`PMI’s interests in e-cigarettes are relatively minor compared to
`its interests in HTPs.
`
`•• For more on PMI’s e-cigarettes see E-cigarettes: Philip
`
`
`
`Morris International.
`
`Altria
`
`Altria launched ‘MarkTen’, produced by its subsidiary Nu Mark,
`in the US in 2014.2727 2828 2929 Altria acquired independent US e-
`cigarette company Green Smoke in 2014.3030 3131
`
`Both brands were discontinued in December 2018 and Altria
`announced that it had bought a 35% stake in market leader
`JUUL Labs, at the time a leading player in the US e-cigarette
`market, for US$12.8 billion. By June 2022, this investment was
`reported to be worth only US$450 million.3232
`
`•• For more on Altria’s e-cigarette interests see E-cigarettes:
`Altria and JUUL Labs.
`
`Patent Claims
`
`In March 2014, Imperial Brands’ Fontem Ventures launched legal
`proceedings over patents in California against nine of its US
`rivals including the top three Lorillard‘s Blu Ecigs, NJOY and
`Logic, and BAT’s Nicoventures. According to the Financial Times
`the lawsuit showed that “big tobacco” was becoming
`increasingly aggressive in the battle for the fast-growing e-
`cigarette market: “patents are expected to play an increasingly
`crucial role as big tobacco companies vie with smaller rivals to
`gain market share.”3333 3434
`
`Fontem Ventures also instigated lawsuits against Altria
`subsidiary Nu Mark, and RJ Reynolds (BAT). Most of these cases
`had been settled out of court by 2017.3535 3636 3737 3838
`
`E-cigarette company JUUL Labs filed multiple complaints of
`
`
`
`patent infringement in the US courts, in October and November
`2018, mainly against companies in China and Uruguay.3939 4040 In
`December 2018, Altria acquired a 35% share in JUUL Labs, who
`subsequently dropped the infringement claims in April 2019.4141
`
`The Global Market
`
`According to Euromonitor International, between 2014 (after
`the first transnational companies entered the market) and 2018
`the value of the global e-cigarette market more than doubled
`from US$6.8 billion to over US$15.5 billion. By 2021, it had risen
`to nearly US$22.8 billion.4242 (NB all figures quoted here are by
`current value and rounded)
`
`The biggest markets by far remained the US and Western
`Europe. In the US the value of the market grew from US$2.6
`billion in 2014, to over 9.6 billion in 2019, although it then fell
`significantly in 2020 to around 7.8 billion in 2021. The Western
`European market grew from US$2.3 billion to US$6.5 billion by
`2021. The UK is the largest of the markets in the region, worth
`over UK£2.6 billion (US$2.9 billion) in 2021.4242
`
`The value of the market in the Asia-Pacific region, a key target
`of tobacco companies, nearly doubled to US$1.4 billion between
`2014 and 2018. After growing rapidly to US$2.2 billion in 2019, it
`doubled again to US$4.4 billion in 2021, making it the fastest
`growing regional market in terms of value. Markets grew more
`slowly in Eastern Europe, and the Middle East. The much
`smaller market in Latin America rose to $US120 million in 2021,
`nearly doubling in two years.4242
`
`Market size is clearly affected by national laws governing the
`sale of e-cigarette products. (See below for information on
`regulation) However, the existence of regulation restricting or
`banning the sale of e-cigarettes does not necessarily mean that
`
`
`
`tobacco company products are not available to purchase in a
`particular country – see for example BAT’s sales of Vype in
`Mexico.
`
`Euromonitor International puts BAT’s share of the global e-
`cigarette market (by value) at around 17.5% (in 2016, before its
`acquisition of RAI, it had been 3.5%). JTI and PMI’s market share
`fell from 2014 and Imperial’s from 2016 (see Table 1).4242 4343 PMI’s
`overall share remains the lowest of all the transnational
`companies (0.2%)
`
`Company
`
`2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021
`
`BAT (including RAI from 2017)
`
`(https://tobaccotactics.org/wiki/e-
`
`1.6
`
`2.9
`
`3.5
`
`11.4 10
`
`10
`
`16.1 17.4
`
`cigarettes-british-american-tobacco)
`
`RAI
`
`Imperial Brands
`
`9.6
`
`6.3
`
`6.5
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`(https://tobaccotactics.org/wiki/e-
`
`0.3
`
`4.7
`
`4
`
`3.9
`
`3.3
`
`3
`
`3.1
`
`2.8
`
`cigarettes-imperial-tobacco)
`
`JTI
`
`(https://tobaccotactics.org/wiki/e-
`
`cigarettes-japan-tobacco-
`
`international)
`
`Altria
`
`4.1
`
`3.3
`
`2.8
`
`3.2
`
`2.9
`
`2.2
`
`2.2
`
`1.5
`
`(https://tobaccotactics.org/wiki/e-
`
`1.1
`
`1.5
`
`1.8
`
`2.5
`
`2.4
`
`0.3
`
`-
`
`-
`
`cigarettes-altria)
`
`PMI
`
`(https://tobaccotactics.org/wiki/e-
`
`cigarettes-philip-morris-
`
`international)
`
`JUUL Labs
`
`1.3
`
`0.9
`
`0.6
`
`0.4
`
`0.3
`
`0.2
`
`0.2
`
`0.2
`
`(https://tobaccotactics.org/wiki/juul-
`
`-
`
`-
`
`0.6
`
`4.1
`
`19.1 27.7 17.1 14.4
`
`labs)
`
`Others (independent companies)
`
`82
`
`80.4 80.3 74.4 61.7 56.4 61.2 63.8
`
`
`
`Table 1: Tobacco Company % Shares of the Global Market, by
`retail value, 2014-2021 (source Euromonitor International)55 4343
`
`Between 2015 and 2019 tobacco companies lost a significant
`slice of the market to the new competitor JUUL Labs, whose
`global share rose rapidly to nearly 28% in 2019 (see Table 1).4242 4343
`In the US the rise of JUUL was even more marked, with the
`company gaining share from both independent e-cigarette
`companies, and tobacco companies. By 2019, JUUL held over
`50% of the US market. It had gained over 15% of the market in
`Ukraine, but little across western Europe, where it began
`withdrawing from markets in 2020.4242 4343 Faced with regulatory
`challenges, especially in the US, JUUL’s share of the market
`started to decline in 2020. For more information, see JUUL Labs.
`
`Overall independent (non-TTC) e-cigarette companies have
`maintained the larger share of the global market. However, this
`fell from over 80% in 2014 to just over 56% in 2019. The market
`share of independent companies began rising again in 2021,
`likely benefiting from the withdrawal of JUUL from some
`markets. Since 2017, Chinese manufacturer RELX Technology,
`has held a rapidly increasing share of the global market, nearly
`doubling each year to 9% in 2021. This gives it the third largest
`share of any company, after BAT and JUUL.4242 4343
`
`New “Disposables”
`
`In 2021, the company with the next largest share after RELX in
`2021, was EVO Brands which held a 1.7% share of the global
`market. EVO manufactures disposable Puff Bars. These single
`use products have proved controversial owing to evidence of
`increasing youth use and concerns around their environmental
`impact.4444 4545 4646 4747 Although widely on sale, EVO’s products have
`not yet received market authorisation in the US and are facing
`enforcement action by the FDA.4343 4848
`
`
`
`JTI has been selling disposable e-cigarettes in the US since
`acquiring the Logic brand in 2015.2020 4949 However it was not until
`2022 that BAT and PMI launched new disposable products,
`within two months of each other: Vuse go and Veeba.
`
`BAT’s VUSE Go
`
`BAT launched its “disposable” e-cigarette under the VUSE brand
`in the UK in May 2022. It was marketed in fruit, mint and
`tobacco flavours, and sold “at a premium price”.5050 BAT stated
`that this was its “fastest concept to market delivery to date.”5151
`
`PMI’s VEEBA/ VEEV Now
`
`According to Euromonitor data, US company Kaival Brands held
`a similar share to EVO in 2021 (1.6%).4343 In July 2022, PMI signed
`a deal with a newly established Kaival subsidiary to develop and
`market PMI’s VEEBA disposable product outside the US, initially
`in Canada.5252 5353 4444 5454 In mid-2023, PMI rebranded VEEBA as
`VEEV NOW.5555
`
`According to market analysis in Tobacco Reporter the value of
`the global disposable market was estimated to be $6.34 billion in
`2022 and projected to triple in the next 10 years.4444 It is likely
`that increased sales of single use e-cigarettes will also impact
`the market for other nicotine products.4747 5656
`
`Imperial’s blu bar
`
`Imperial launched its blu bar disposable for the UK market in
`November 2022, only a few months after PMI and BAT launched
`theirs, to “meet the rapidly growing demand in this category”5757
`
`
`
`Image 2: UK Singer Lily Allen paid by BAT to promote Vype
`
`on social media, triggering complaints to the UK Advertising
`Standards Authority (Image source: PR Week5858 )
`
`According to analysis in Tobacco Reporter the value of the
`global market for single use “disposable” products was
`estimated to be $6.34 billion in 2022, and projected to triple in
`the next 10 years.4444 It is likely that increased sales of single use
`e-cigarettes will also impact the market for other nicotine
`products.4747 5959
`
`•• For more information see E-cigarettes: Tobacco Company
`Interests in Single Use Products
`
`
`
`Marketing Strategies
`
`Tobacco companies use a wide range of marketing tactics to
`promote their products, ranging from traditional media
`advertising, price promotions and point of sale displays.
`However, as e-cigarette advertising has become more restricted
`companies have been forced to become more creative. Pop-up
`stores and events, music festivals and collaborations with artists
`(see Image 2) and designers have all been used to help market e-
`cigarettes, with widespread online promotion via social media,
`paid celebrities and influencers.5858 6060 This has led to the
`companies being criticised for targeting young people, rather
`than adult smokers looking to quit.5858 6161 6262 6363
`
`The same criticism has been levelled at JUUL Labs. In
`September 2018, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
`wrote to JUUL Labs, Fontem Ventures (Imperial), Altria,
`Reynolds American Inc. (RAI) and JTI, giving the companies 60
`days to provide a written plan to “address the rate of youth use”
`of their products.6464
`
`E-cigarette Regulation
`
`Regulation of e-cigarettes varies widely across the world, from
`full bans (e.g. India); only being available on prescription (e.g.
`Australia); and to being freely sold as a consumer good (e.g.
`Europe, US).
`
`The Policy Scan Project, by the Institute for Global Tobacco
`Control (at Johns Hopkins University) tracks and reports
`regulatory approaches to e-cigarettes around the world.
`
`The Global Centre for Good Governance in Tobacco Control
`(GGTC) also publishes information on e-cigarette regulation.6565
`
`
`
`For detailed, up to date information at country level, see the
`searchable database on the Tobacco Control Laws website,
`published by the Campaign for Tobacco Free Kids (CTFK).
`
`For countries that are parties to the WHO Framework
`Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC) progress towards
`implementation of relevant articles, including newer products,
`is detailed in the FCTC implementation database.6666
`
`Information on current e-cigarette regulation can also be found
`on relevant pages of government websites (see Relevant Links
`below). See this page for information on the situation in 2014,
`when there was little regulation in place.
`
`Lobbying Regulators
`
`Article 5.3 of the World Health Organization Framework
`Convention on Tobacco Control (WHO FCTC), designed to
`protect public health policies from commercial and other vested
`interests, applies to the whole tobacco industry irrespective of
`the type of products they are attempting to sell. Tobacco
`companies are spending considerable amounts of time, effort
`and money lobbying decision-makers concerned with laws and
`regulations around e-cigarettes.6767
`
`As with lobbying on tobacco products, tactics include:
`
`•• Direct lobbying of politicians and policy makers in formal
`meetings.6868 6969 See for example the UK All-Party
`Parliamentary Group for Vaping (E-Cigarettes)
`
`•• Submissions to government consultations.7070 7171 7272 7373
`
`•• Meetings and discussions at political and ‘social’ events
`(sometimes sponsored by tobacco companies).7474 7575
`
`
`
`•• Employing professional lobbyists.7676
`
`•• Setting up and joining existing trade associations, to lobby
`on companies’ behalf.7777 7878 See also The UK Vaping
`Industry Association (UKVIA) and other E-cigarette
`Trade Associations with Tobacco Industry Members.
`
`•• ‘Astroturfing’ – setting up fake grass roots campaigns.7979
`See for example Imperial Brands’ use of the EU Citizens’
`Initiative.
`
`Can E-cigarettes Help
`Advance Public Health?
`
`Globally, there is an ongoing debate about whether e-cigarettes
`are a threat or an opportunity to public health. Some public
`health experts believe that e-cigarettes are an essential
`alternative to smoking tobacco that can help smokers quit.
`Others argue that e-cigarettes could be a route into nicotine
`addiction and point out that their long-term safety has not yet
`been proven. There are also those that believe that e-cigarettes
`may offer public health benefits but that e-cigarettes should be
`regulated, particularly when it comes to the marketing of such
`products.
`
`While acknowledging that there are many unknowns about e-
`cigarettes and that these products are not harmless, many
`experts in tobacco control and public health will agree that
`vaping e-cigarettes is less harmful to the health of an individual
`smoker than smoking cigarettes. For e-cigarettes to have a
`positive impact on population-level health, a significant number
`of smokers need to switch completely to e-cigarettes (so not
`dual-using these products with cigarettes), and the product
`cannot act as a ‘gateway’ into nicotine addiction for youth and
`
`
`
`non-smokers, or undermine existing proven tobacco control
`measures. The difficulty is that a growing share of the global e-
`cigarette market these days is held by the tobacco industry,
`which has a history of using newer products to stem the decline
`in cigarette sales and promote these products to any potential
`customer.8080 8181
`
`What the Industry Says: It’s All About Harm
`Reduction
`
`The tobacco industry has long argued that products like e-
`cigarettes should be made easily available to smokers, to offer
`them a ‘less harmful’ alternative to smoking.8282 In its 2018 “Next
`Generation Products” report, Imperial wrote that particularly e-
`cigarettes (or ‘vapour products’ as they refer to it) were creating
`“…a huge global public health opportunity”.8383 BAT, somewhat
`misleadingly, claimed that there is ‘growing scientific consensus’
`on the issue. In its 2018 Sustainability Report, the company
`stated:
`
`“There is growing consensus among public health
`
`bodies and academics that vapour products e-
`
`cigarettes can have a significantly reduced risk profile
`
`compared to smoking. Public Health England in the UK
`
`estimates these products are ‘95% less harmful than
`
`smoking’… Other third-party science and research
`
`supporting the significantly reduced-risk potential of
`vapour products continue to grow”.8484
`
`A study by researchers from the University of Bath’s Tobacco
`Control Research Group found that these products, and the
`associated harm reduction narrative, serve to “…‘renormalize’
`an industry that is determined to be seen as a responsible
`business with a legitimate product…”.8282 The study also found
`that the products and narrative are used as tools to initiate
`dialogue with scientists, public health experts, politicians and
`
`
`
`policy makers, re-framing themselves as ‘part of the solution’
`rather than being the problem.8282 Therefore, the tobacco
`industry is using e-cigarettes and other newer products as a
`way to try and re-enter the policy arena from which it has
`increasingly, and successfully, been excluded in line with Article
`5.3 of the WHO Framework Convention on Tobacco Control.
`
`What Industry Documents Show: It’s All
`About Profit
`
`Despite positioning itself as ‘the solution to the tobacco
`problem’ it is worth noting that the core of the global tobacco
`industry’s business remains unchanged. E-cigarettes on
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
