The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A. of Neuchâtel, Switzerland, represented by DM Kisch Inc., South Africa.
The Respondent is Registration Private of Istanbul, Turkey / Galip Demirtas of Istanbul, Umraniye, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 28, 2019. On February 28, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 28, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 5, 2019 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On March 5, 2019, the Respondent sent an email to the Center. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on March 7, 2019.
The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 11, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 31, 2019. The Response was filed with the Center on March 28, 2019.
The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on April 8, 2019. 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 part of the Philip Morris International Inc. group, which is a group of companies active in the field of tobacco and smoke-free products.
The Complainant owns various word and figurative IQOS trademark registrations around the world, including in Turkey, where the Respondent appears to be located. According to the provided documents in the case file, the Complainant is, inter alia, the registered owner of the International Trademark Registrations No. 1218246 (registered on July 10, 2014) covering trademark protection in many countries (including Turkey), inter alia, for products covered in classes 9,11 and 34.
The Complainant also owns and operates various domain names which incorporate the IQOS trademark, such as .
The Respondent seems to be an individual from Turkey, who has used a third party service provider for the registration of the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name was registered on October 24, 2018.
The screenshots, as provided by the Complainant, show that the disputed domain name resolves to a website in the Turkish language, which is used for offering various kinds of IQOS smoking-free products (cf. Annex 8 to the Complaint). On the disputed domain name, the Respondent prominently uses the IQOS word and figurative trademark as well as product images of the Complainant without publishing any visible disclaimer describing the (non-existent) relationship between the parties. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name.
The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its IQOS trademark.
Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is rather argued that the disputed domain name falsely suggests that there is some official or authorized link with the Complainant and the Respondent.
Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant particularly argues that the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant’s IQOS trademark, when registering the disputed domain name, particularly as the Respondent prominently uses the Complainant’s word and figurative IQOS trademarks and its product images without authorization and any disclosure of the missing relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. Instead, the Respondent indicated in its email communications to the Center on March 5 and 28, 2019 that it registered the disputed domain name on behalf of a third party located in Turkey and that the proceedings should be continued against that said third party.
Furthermore, the Panel notes that the Respondent closed the hosting service after the notification of Complaint and commencement of administrative proceeding. 6. Discussion and Findings
According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied:
(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights; and
(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2007-1228.
However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel might accept, where relevant, the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”).
It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views stated therein. A. True Identity of the Respondent
The Respondent alleges that it registered the disputed domain name on behalf of a third party, who is apparently also located in Turkey.
In view of the Panel, the mere allegation of the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name on behalf of another third party (even if true) is not sufficient to ask the Complainant for an amendment of the Complaint and a replacement of the Respondent of the present proceedings with any such identified third party, particularly if – as in the present case – the disputed domain name is formally registered with the actual Respondent.
As defined in the Rules, the Respondent is “the holder of a domain-name registration against which a complaint is initiated”, and the Registrar identified the Respondent as the relevant registrant.
Hence, the Panel does not find any reason not to proceed with the present administrative proceedings against the named Respondent, even if there might be further third parties involved in the registration or operation of the disputed domain name.
In this regard, the Panel notes that the Center sent the notification of the Complaint, the Complainant and its annexes to the Respondent and to the identified third party that may have had an interest in the proceeding. The Panel also notes that the Respondent has provided some research on the identity and activities of the identified third party. However, neither the Respondent nor the identified third party have put forward satisfactory evidence to rebut the Complainant´s case, neither evidence of the relationship between the named Respondent and the identified third party, let alone any satisfactory argument supported by evidence as to why the registrant should not be the named Respondent.
The Panel also recalls that there are certain benefits, obligations and repercussions flowing from the registration of a domain name even on behalf of another.
Consequently, and for the purpose of these administrative proceedings, the Panel finds the named Respondent as the Respondent. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar
The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in the mark IQOS by virtue of various trademark registrations, including trademark registrations covering protection in Turkey, where the Respondent appears to be located.
The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered IQOS trademark, as it fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. As stated at section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0, where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms would generally not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The mere addition of the dictionary term “blue” does, in view of the Panel, not serve to avoid a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s IQOS trademark.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests
The Panel further finds that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
While the burden of proof on this element remains with the complainant, previous UDRP panels have recognized that this would result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence in this regard is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455.
The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this requirement, while the Respondent has failed to file any evidence or make any convincing argument to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to the Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c).
In its Complaint, the Complainant has provided uncontested prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the Complainant’s trademark IQOS specially being the disputed domain name confusingly similar to the Complainant´s trademark (see section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0).
There is also no indication in the current record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. In the absence of a substantively Response, the Respondent has particularly failed to demonstrate any of the other non-exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
In addition, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent cannot be assessed as a legitimate dealer for the Complainant’s products in light of Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (“Oki Data”) and thus is not entitled to use the disputed domain name accordingly. The criteria as set forth in Oki Data is apparently not fulfilled in the present case. The Panel particularly notes that the Respondent’s website which is linked to the disputed domain name does not adequately disclose the relationship, or rather the lack thereof, between the Respondent and the Complainant, thus creating the false impression that the Respondent might be an official and authorized distributor for the Complainant’s products in Turkey. In view of the Panel, this takes the Respondent out of the Oki Data safe harbour for purposes of the second element.
As a conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
In the Panel’s view, the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.
The Panel is convinced that the Respondent must have had the Complainant’s trademark IQOS in mind when registering the disputed domain name.
It even appears that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name solely for the purpose of creating an association with the Complainant, in particular with its smoke-free products.
After having reviewed the Complainant’s screenshots of the website linked to the disputed domain name, the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name in order to generate traffic to its own website. The Panel notes that the Respondent has not published any visible disclaimer on the website linked to the disputed domain name to explain that there is no existing relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant. Quite the opposite, the design of the website linked to the disputed domain name, the use of product images of the Complainant and the prominent use of the Complainant’s word and figurative IQOS trademark and the nature of the disputed domain name is, in view of the Panel, sufficient evidence that the Respondent intentionally tries to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s IQOS trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website.
The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith and that the Complainant has also satisfied the third element of the Policy, namely, paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 name be transferred to the Complainant.
Kaya Köklü
Sole Panelist
Date: April 17, 2019
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy