The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A., Switzerland, represented by D.M. Kisch Inc., South Africa.
The Respondent is Nguyen Tan Khanh, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 12, 2020. On June 12, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 13, 2020, 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 June 15, 2020 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on June 15, 2020. The same day, the Center transmitted an email in English and Vietnamese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed the request that English be the language of the proceeding on June 15, 2020. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding. 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 June 23, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 13, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 3, 2020. The Center appointed Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac as the sole panelist in this matter August 11, 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 The Complainant Philip Morris Products S.A. is an affiliated company of Philip Morris International Inc. (jointly referred to as “PMI”), an international tobacco company, with products sold in approximately 180 countries. IQOS is one of PMI’s brands, which are developed and used for smoke-free tobacco products. IQOS was first introduced in Nagoya, Japan in 2014, and now is available in around 53 markets across the world. The IQOS products have been almost exclusively distributed through PMI’s official IQOS stores, websites, selected authorized distributors and retailers. The trademark IQOS has been registered for goods in Class 34 in a variety of countries, including in Viet Nam, where the Respondent resides, under International Registrations No. 1218246 registered on July 10, 2014, and No. 1461017 registered on January 18, 2019. The Complainant also registered the hummingbird logo under International Registration No. 1331054 registered on January24, 2017, designating Viet Nam. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name The Complainant contends that each of the three elements specified in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy are satisfied in the present case, as follows: (i) The Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the trademark in which the Complainant has rights. First, the Complainant contends that the Complainant is the registered owner of trademark registrations for IQOS in numerous jurisdictions, including, but not limited to Viet Nam. Secondly, the Complainant asserts that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to IQOS Trademarks owned by the Complainant since the Disputed Domain Name reproduces entirely the registered IQOS Trademarks, and the addition of the descriptive term “may hut thuoc”, which is informally translated as “smoking machine” in Vietnamese, could not dispel any likelihood of confusion. Finally, the Complainant submits that the addition of the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) suffix “.com” in the Disputed Domain Name does not add any distinctiveness to the Disputed Domain Name. (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Complainant submits that the elements set forth in Policy, paragraph 4(c) are not fulfilled. First, the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register a domain name incorporating its IQOS trademark (or a domain name which will be associated with this trademark). Second, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has not made use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Particularly, the use of Disputed Domain Name does not meet the requirements described in the decision Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903: - The Disputed Domain Name itself suggests an affiliation with the Complainant and its IQOS trademark, as the domain name wholly reproduces the Complainant’s registered IQOS trademark together with the descriptive word “may hut thuoc” (informally “smoking machine” in English). - Further, the Respondent also uses the Complainant’s registered trademarks IQOS and hummingbird logo as well as official marketing material and product images on its website without authorization. - The Website includes no information regarding the identity of the provider of the Website, which is only identified as “Máy Hút Thuốc IQOS Nhật” (in English: “Japanese IQOS Smoking Machine”) to perpetuate the false impression of an official commercial relationship between the Website and the Complainant. Third, the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the IQOS trademarks of the Complainant. (iii) The Disputed Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant asserts that it is evident from the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s IQOS trademark when registering the Disputed Domain Name. Furthermore, the term “iqos” is purely an imaginative term and unique to the Complainant. The term “iqos” is not commonly used to refer to tobacco products. It is therefore beyond the realm of reasonable coincidence that the Respondent chose the Disputed Domain Name, without the intention of invoking a misleading association with the Complainant. It is also evident from the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name that the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s IQOS trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website or a product/service. Additionally, by reproducing the Complainant’s registered trademark in the Disputed Domain Name and the title of the Website, as well as using the Complainant’s official product images and marketing materials, the Respondent created false impression that the website belongs to the Complainant or is an affiliated deader endorsed by the Complainant, which it is not. Finally, the fact that Respondent is using a privacy protection service to hide its true identity may in itself constitute a factor indicating bad faith. With the said arguments, the Complainant requests that the Disputed Domain Name The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Procedural Issues (i) Respondent’s Identity The Panel notes that at the time the Complaint was filed on June 12, 2020, the Respondent was identified as “Private Registration”. On June 13, 2020, the Registrar revealed the underlying registrant “Nguyen Tan Khanh”. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 15, 2020, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. On June 15, 2020, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint, replacing the respondent named in the initial Complaint by the underlying registrant. (ii) Language of the Proceeding The Complaint was filed in English. However, the Registrar confirmed that the language of the Registration Agreement was Vietnamese. As the Complaint was filed in English, the Center, in its notification dated June 15, 2020, invited the Complainant to submit either (i) satisfactory evidence of an agreement between the Complainant and the Respondent to the effect that the proceeding should be in English, or (ii) submit the Complaint translated into Vietnamese, or (ii) a substantiated request for English to be the language of the proceeding. On June 15, 2020, the Complainant submitted a request that English be the language of the proceeding. According to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the 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. Similar to previous UDRP decisions, the Panel finds that the spirit of paragraph 11(a) is to ensure fairness in the selection of language by giving full consideration to the Parties’ level of comfortability with each language, the expenses to be incurred and possibility of delay in the proceeding in the event translations are required and other relevant factors (see, e.g., Deutsche Messe AG v. Kim Hyungho,WIPO Case No. D2003-0679). In the present case, the Panel takes into account the circumstances of the proceeding, including, but not limited to: (i) the fact that the Complainant, a Swiss business entity, does not appear to be able to communicate in Vietnamese, and therefore, if the Complainant was required to have the documents translated into Vietnamese, the proceeding would be unduly delayed, and the Complainant would have to incur substantial expenses for translation; (ii) the English language is quite popular in Viet Nam, where the Respondent is located, and the website under the Disputed Domain Name contains English content; these suggest that the Respondent has ample knowledge of the English language and be able to communicate quite well in English; Therefore, for the purpose of comprehension of the Complainant (the party majorly taking part in the proceeding) of the Panel’s decision without any necessity of translations, and in the interest of fairness to both Parties as well as the Panel’s obligation under paragraph 10(c) of the Rules, which provides that “the Panel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”, the Panel hereby decides, under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, that the language of the proceeding shall be English and shall render its decision in English. (iii) The Respondent’s Failure to Respond The Respondent’s failure to file a Response does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant (see, e.g., Tradewind Media, LLC d/b/a Intopic Media v. Jayson Hahn,WIPO Case No. D2010-1413, and M. Corentin Benoit Thiercelin v. CyberDeal, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2010-0941). However, the Panel may draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default. B. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant is required to establish the following: (i) that it has trademark rights, and, if so, (ii) that the Disputed Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its trademark. First of all, the Panel finds that the Complainant has clearly evidenced that it has registered trademark rights to IQOS, well before the Disputed Domain Name was registered. Second, the Disputed Domain Name comprises the Complainant’s IQOS mark, in which the Complainant has exclusive rights. The difference between the Disputed Domain Name and the trademark is the addition of the prefix “may hut thuoc” (in English: “smoking device”), which is a descriptive phrase. The Panel finds that the term “iqos” clearly remains the dominant element in the Disputed Domain Name. It is well established that the addition of a descriptive term (such as “may hut thuoc”) to a trademark does not prevent confusing similarity. Thus, in the Panel’s view, the addition of the said prefix does nothing to distinguish the Disputed Domain Name from the trademark, nor to dispel confusing similarity, as it was found in previous UDRP decisions (see, e.g., Facebook, Inc. v. Domain Admin Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyProtect.org) / Do Viet Dung,WIPO Case No. D2019-1121; Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Ong Nguyen Ngoc Ha,WIPO Case No. D2019-2509). Third, the Panel finds, similarly to other UDRP panels, that the addition of the gTLD “.com” to the Disputed Domain Name does not constitute an element as to avoid confusing similarity for the Policy purposes (see, e.g., Volkswagen AG v. Privacy Protection Services,WIPO Case No. D2012-2066; The Coca-Cola Company v. David Jurkiewicz,WIPO Case No. DME2010-0008; Telecom Personal, S.A., v. NAMEZERO.COM, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0015; F. Hoffmann La Roche AG v. Macalve e-dominios S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2006-0451; Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003). On the basis of the foregoing findings, and according to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IQOS trademark, and the first element of the Policy is established. C. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy lists circumstances, in particular but without limitation, which, if found by the Panel to be proved, demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, including: “(i) before any notice to you 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 (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 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 finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie evidence on that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent did not refute the Complainant’s contentions. The consensus of previous UDRP decisions is that while the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, once a prima facie case is made, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating his rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name (see e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270; Julian Barnes v. Old Barn Studios Limited,WIPO Case No. D2001-0121). In this instant case, the Panel finds that the Respondent has failed to meet that burden since no response was submitted providing arguments or evidence to the contrary. Regarding paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy, the Panel finds, in light of the Complainant’s asserted facts, that no license, permission or authorization of any kind to use the Complainant’s trademark has been granted to the Respondent. There is no evidence available that the Respondent holds any registered or unregistered trademark rights in any jurisdiction. Thus, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights in the trademark IQOS. A reseller or distributor may be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have rights or legitimate interests in a domain name if its use meets certain requirements, which are described in the decision Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (“Oki Data”), including: - the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue; - the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods (otherwise, there is the possibility that the respondent is using the trademark in a domain name to bait consumers and then switch them to other goods); - the site itself must accurately disclose the respondent’s relationship with the trademark owner; and - the respondent must not try to “corner the market” in all relevant domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of the ability to reflect its own mark in a domain name. In this particular case, the Panel finds the Respondent does not place any statement or disclaimer disclosing accurately its relationship with the Complainant. Further, the website under the Disputed Domain Name also contains the Complainant’s trademark IQOS as well as its official marketing material and product images. In addition, the Website’s title stated that “Máy hút thuốc IQOS Chính Hãng Nhật Bản” (in English: “Authentic IQOS smoking device from Japan”). This indication – especially along with the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s marketing materials – may mislead consumers into believing in a connection or association between the Respondent and the Complainant, where such connection or association does not exist in reality. With such a view, the Panel finds that the unauthorized use of the Disputed Domain Name does not meet the Oki Data criteria and thus, does not constitute a bona fide use within paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. Regarding paragraphs 4(c)(ii) and 4(c)(iii) of the Policy, the Panel finds that there is no evidence that would suggest that the Respondent, as an individual, business, or other organization, has been commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, or that the Respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. In fact, as it appears following the Complainant’s assertions and evidence with regard to the Respondent’s registration of the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent had full knowledge of the IQOS trademark and had an intention to gain profit by riding on the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name, and the second element, paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is established. D. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy identifies, in particular but without limitation, four circumstances which, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith, including: “(i) circumstances indicating that you have registered or you have acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of your documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) you have 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 you have engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) you have registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, you have intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to your website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of your website or location or of a product or service on your website or location.” Each of the four circumstances in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy, if found, is an instance of “registration and use of a domain name in bad faith”. The Panel finds that the Complainant has put forth evidence that the Respondent has registered and used the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions and, therefore, did not refute the Complainant’s contentions. The Panel further finds that the Complainant’s IQOS trademarks have been registered in numerous countries. The Complainant’s trademarks have been registered and used in, among other countries, Viet Nam where the Respondent resides. These trademark registrations well predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name. The Disputed Domain Name comprises the IQOS trademark in its entirety, adding only the descriptive phrase “may hut thuoc”. Given the extensive use of the IQOS trademark for tobacco products by the Complainant, which occurs in numerous countries, including in Viet Nam, where the Respondent resides, it is very unlikely that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name in a random fortuity. Also, in consideration of the use of the Disputed Domain Name and the contents of the website there under, the Panel is of the view that the Respondent obviously knew of the Complainant and its IQOS trademark when it registered the Disputed Domain Name, and the Panel considers the registration an attempt by the Respondent as to take advantage of the Complainant’s reputation and goodwill. On the date of this Decision, the Panel accesses the Disputed Domain Name and finds that it is resolving to a website offering the tobacco products branded with the Complainant’s trademark IQOS. In addition to the adoption of the Complainant’s IQOS trademark as a uniquely distinctive part in the Disputed Domain Name, the Respondent used the Complainant’s trademarks, official marketing material and product images on the website and thereby falsely represented itself like an affiliate or distributor of the Complainant by the indication in the Website’s title “Máy Hút Thuốc IQOS Chính Hãng Nhật Bản” (in English: “Authentic IQOS Smoking Device from Japan”). The Panel takes the view that any Internet users seeking to purchase the Complainant’s IQOS products would very likely mistakenly believe that the Respondent is either connected to or associated with the Complainant. However, no such connection exists in fact. Such misleading behavior is indicative of bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, on the part of the Respondent. Taking into account all of the above and the available record, the Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name was registered and used by the Respondent in bad faith and the third element under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is established. 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 Pham Nghiem Xuan Bac
Sole Panelist
Date: August 21, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy