The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A., Switzerland, represented by D.M. Kisch Inc., South Africa.
The Respondent is Mohammed Robiul Hossain, Solver, the United Arab Emirates. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 16, 2021. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 19, 2021, 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 July 20, 2021 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 July 21, 2021. 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 July 23, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 12, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 16, 2021. The Complainant is part of the group of companies affiliated to Philip Morris International Inc. (“PMI”). PMI is a leading international tobacco company, with products sold in approximately 180 countries. PMI has developed a precisely-controlled heating device into which specially designed tobacco products, sold under the brand names “Heets” or “HeatSticks”, are inserted and heated to generate a flavourful nicotine-containing aerosol, collectively referred to as the “IQOS System”. The IQOS System was first launched by PMI in Japan in 2014, and is now available in cities in around 66 markets across the world, with approximately 19 million consumers. To date, the IQOS System has been almost exclusively distributed through PMI’s official IQOS stores and websites and selected authorized distributors and retailers. The Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademark registrations, including: United Arab Emirates Registration No. 256864 (registered on December 25, 2017) for the word trademark HEETS; United Arab Emirates Registration No. 256867 (registered on December 25, 2017) for the device trademark (“HEETS device mark”); United Arab Emirates Registration No. 211139 (registered March 16, 2016) for the word trademark IQOS; and United Arab Emirates Registration No. 211143 (registered on March 16, 2016), for the device trademark (“IQOS device mark”). The disputed domain name was registered on January 4, 2021. The Complainant has provided screenshots, taken on July 14, 2021, of the website resolving from the disputed domain name, at which appears the words “Heets Iqos Shop Uae”, the HEETS and IQOS word and device trademarks, a selection of purported HEETS and IQOS products offered for sale apparently using the Complainant’s official product images, purported products of the Complainant’s competitors offered for sale, and prices for the various offered products stated in the United Arab Emirates dirham currency. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which it has rights because: (i) the disputed domain name identically adopts the Complainant’s HEETS and IQOS trademarks; (ii) any Internet user visiting the website resolving from the disputed domain name will reasonably expect to find a website commercially linked to the owner of the HEETS and IQOS trademarks; (iii) this unlawful association is exacerbated by the use of the Complainant’s official product images without the Complainant’s authorization; and (iv) it is well established that the applicable generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded. The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name because: (i) the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register a domain name incorporating its HEETS and IQOS trademarks; (ii) the Respondent shows a clear intent to obtain an unfair commercial gain, with a view to misleadingly diverting consumers or to tarnish the trademarks owned by the Complainant; (iii) the Respondent is not an authorized distributor or reseller of the IQOS System, and uses the Complainant’s official product images without authorization, while at the same time falsely claiming copyright in this material; (iv) the website resolving from the disputed domain name is selling competing tobacco products and/or accessories of other commercial origin; (v) the Respondent does not meet the requirements set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, as a reseller or distributor of the Complainant’s products; (vi) the disputed domain name in itself suggests at least an affiliation with the Complainant and its HEETS and IQOS trademarks; and (vii) the owner/administrator of the website resolving from the disputed domain name prominently, and without authorization, presents the Complainant’s registered HEETS and IQOS trademarks appearing at the top of the website, where consumers will usually expect to find the name of the online shop and/or the name of the website provider. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith because: (i) as the Respondent started offering the Complainant’s IQOS System immediately after registering the disputed domain name, and the terms “Heets” and “Iqos” are imaginative terms unique to the Complainant and not commonly used to refer to tobacco products or electronic devices, it is 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; (ii) the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain name with the intention to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website resolving from it by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s registered HEETS and IQOS trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or of a product or service on it; (iii) by reproducing the Complainant’s registered trademarks in the disputed domain name and the title of the website resolving from it, the Respondent’s website clearly suggests the Complainant or an affiliated dealer of the Complainant as the source of the website, which is not true, and this is further supported by the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s official product images; (iv) the Respondent is not only using the Complainant’s HEETS and IQOS trademarks for the purposes of offering for sale the IQOS System, but also for offering for sale third party products of other commercial origin, which is an abusive use of the Complainant’s HEETS and IQOS trademarks and clear evidence of the Respondent’s bad faith; (v) the Respondent’s purported recent involvement in the bad faith registration and use of the domain name The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar Once the gTLD “.net” is ignored (which is appropriate in this case), the disputed domain name consists of the Complainant’s registered word trademarks HEETS and IQOS, separated by a hyphen. The Complainant’s trademarks are clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to trademarks in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Respondent is not a licensee of the Complainant, is not an authorized distributor of the Complainant’s products, and has not been authorized by the Complainant to use its HEETS and IQOS word trademarks. The Respondent has not provided any evidence that it has been commonly known by, or has made a bona fide use of, the disputed domain name, or that it has, for any other reason, rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The evidence provided by the Complainant shows that the disputed domain name has been used to resolve to a website at which is displayed, without authorization, images of the Complainant’s products, as well as products of the Complainant’s competitors. The contents of the website are such that many Internet users will form the false belief that the website is operated by, or affiliated with, the Complainant. According to the present record, therefore, the disputed domain name is not being used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, or for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The disputed domain name was registered several years after the Complainant first registered its HEETS and IQOS word trademarks. It is inconceivable that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name ignorant of the existence of the Complainant’s HEETS and IQOS word trademarks, given that there has been substantial use of the trademarks, that the disputed domain name consists of the two trademarks separated by a hyphen, and that the Respondent used the disputed domain name to resolve to a website at which the trademarks and the HEETS and IQOS device marks appear. Given the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and the confusing similarity of the disputed domain name to the Complainant’s word trademarks, any use of the disputed domain name by the Respondent almost certainly implies an affiliation with the Complainant that does not exist, and so would be a use in bad faith. Furthermore, the evidence on the record provided by the Complainant indicates that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name in an attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website by creating confusion in the minds of the public as to an association between the website and the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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, Andrew F. Christie
The Center appointed Andrew F. Christie as the sole panelist in this matter on August 25, 2021. 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
Sole Panelist
Date: September 8, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy