The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A. of Neuchâtel, Switzerland, represented by Simone Intellectual Property Services Asia Limited, China.

The Respondent is Han Ming, Lin Cheng of Kunming, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Chengdu West Dimension Digital Technology Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 19, 2018. On July 19, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 23, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. On July 24, 2018, the Center transmitted an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding on July 25, 2018. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.

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 the Respondent in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 3, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 23, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 26, 2018.

The Center appointed Jonathan Agmon as the sole panelist in this matter on September 5, 2018. 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, Philip Morris Products S.A. is a part of a group of companies affiliated with Philip Morris International Inc. (PMI), which is one of the world's leading tobacco companies with products sold in more than 180 countries, holding a brand portfolio consisting of brands such as Marlboro, according to the Complainant, the world's number one selling cigarette brand since 1972.

PMI is in the course of transforming its business from combustible cigarettes to Reduced Risk Products has developed a number of products. One of the products is marketed under the IQOS brand. Iqos is a precisely controlled heating device into which specially designed tobacco products under the brand names HEETS and HEATSTICKS are inserted and heated to generate a flavorful-containing aerosol. The IQOS system consists of an Iqos Pocket Charger, designed to charge the IQOS Holder – together known as IQOS products.

Today IQOS products are marketed in 38 key cities worldwide. Because of a USD 4.5 billion investment and extensive international sales and marketing efforts, IQOS products have achieved notoriety and fame – claims the Complainant.

The Complainant is the owner of IQOS trademarks worldwide, holds an extensive portfolio which includes a variety of different trademarks registrations. The Complainant owns a number trademark registrations in China and Taiwan province of China including but not limited to:

- Chinese Trademark IQOS No. 15098769 registered on June 28, 2015;

- Chinese Trademark IQOS No. 15098772 registered on June 21, 2015;

- Chinese Trademark IQOS No. 16314287 registered on May 14, 2016;

- Chinese Trademark IQOS No. 16314286 registered on May 14, 2016;

- Taiwan province of China Trademark IQOS (stylized) No. 01845937 registered June 1, 2017;

- Taiwan province of China Trademark IQOS No. 01718978 registered on July 16, 2015; and

- Taiwan province of China Trademark IQOS No. 01718976 registered on July 16, 2015.

The disputed domain name was registered March 26, 2018.

The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering the Complainants' IQOS products as well as HEET and HEATSTICKS products, etc., and endorses "Taiwan IQOS Specialty Store".

It should be noted that the Complainant has not yet began to market in China or Taiwan province of China. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered mark IQOS since it contains the Complainant’s mark in its entirety and states that an addition of a generic term as “buy” with a hyphen does not negate confusion of Internet users. It further contends that the fact the website the disputed domain name resolves to offers the Complainants' products adds to the confusion of Internet users as well as other variations of proprietary rights of the Complainant.

The Complainant also argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since the Complainant is the trademark owner and the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way.

The Complainant also argued that the term “IQOS” has no meaning in the English language and was created by the Complainant for its brand. The Complainant stipulates this indicates that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to gain undue advantage of the Complainant’s registered mark and notoriety.

The Complainant claims that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as it is impossible he did not know or should have known about the Complainants’ rights in the registered and mark as it is offering the Complainant's products, which also proves there was no bona fide registration or use and that the Respondent is actively trying to gain profits due to the Complainant's reputation and success.

For all of the above reasons, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Language of the Proceeding

Paragraph 11 of the Rules provides that:

“(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese, as confirmed by the Registrar in its verification email to the Center of July 23, 2018.

The Complainant requested that the lan