ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Yazan Zaza Case No. D2025-2668 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A., Switzerland, represented by D.M. Kisch Inc., South Africa. The Respondent is Yazan Zaza, Jordan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 7, 2025. On July 8, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 8, 2025, 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 (Registration Private / Domains By Proxy, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 11, 2025, 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 12, 2025. 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 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 24, 2025. The Respondent sent email communication to the Center on July 17, 2025, stating that he did not wish to contest the complaint and was willing to voluntarily transfer the domain to the complainant and also on July 23, 2025, that the Respondent is willing to explore the possibility of settlement and agrees for suspension of the proceedings. In accordance with the Rules, Paragraph 17(a)(i), the Complainant, on July 26, 2025, formally requested for the suspension of the proceedings to explore the possibility of settlement pursuant to which the Center suspended the proceedings
page 2 until August 27, 2025. On August 15, 2025, the Complainant notified the Center that the Parties have not been able to reach a settlement and therefore requested for reinstitution of the proceedings. On the same day, the Center reinstituted the proceedings with due date for Response as August 24, 2025. The Center appointed Saisunder Nedungal Vidhya Bhaskar as the sole panelist in this matter on September 1, 2025. 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 a group of companies affiliated to Philip Morris International Inc. (jointly referred to as “PMI”) which is a leading international tobacco and smoke-free products company, with products sold in approximately 180 countries. In the course of transforming its business from combustible cigarettes to Reduced Risk Products, one of the products PMI manufactures and sells is a tobacco heating system called IQOS. IQOS is a precisely controlled heating device into which specially designed tobacco sticks under the brand names HEETS, DELIA, LEVIA or TEREA are inserted and heated to generate a flavourful nicotine-containing aerosol (collectively referred to as the “IQOS System”). The IQOS System was launched in 2014. The IQOS System has been exclusively distributed through IQOS official stores and websites and authorised distributors and retailers. The Complainant is the owner, amongst others, of the following trademark registrations: - International trademark registration No. 1218246 for IQOS (word), registered on July 10, 2014, in International Classes 9, 11 and 34; - United States of America trademark registration No. 5860364 for HEETS (word) registered on September 17, 2019, in International Class 34; - International trademark registration No. 1765887 for TEREA (word) registered on October 19, 2023 in International Class 34. The Respondent is an individual named Yazan Zaza from Jordan. The disputed domain name was registered on July 3, 2025. At the time of filing of Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a website that was allegedly selling and offering the Complainant’s IQOS System, displaying official product images of the Complainant’s products, and the Complainant’s IQOS, HEETS, and TEREA trademarks and logos (Annex 8 to the Complaint). However, currently the disputed domain name redirects to a website under the domain name indicating that the said website is under maintenance and will be available soon. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant is the registered owner of the IQOS, HEETS and TEREA trademarks in numerous jurisdictions and hence the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the registered trademarks of the Complainant. The Complainant further claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a legitimate and non-commercial use. Finally, the Complainant considers that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. However, in email communications dated July 17, July 23, and September 1, 2025, the Respondent seems to have expressed his willingness to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that, in order to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain name the Complainant must prove: (i) The domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the domain name; and (iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In the light of the fact that the Respondent seems to have indicated his willingness to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant and further taking into account the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.10, the Panel notes that consent to transfer by the Respondent can provide a basis for an order for transfer without a need for consideration of the UDRP grounds. Nevertheless, the Panel would have in any case found that all the three essential elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been met in this case since, based on the documentary evidences submitted by the Complainant it is established that: (i) the Complainant owns trademark rights on “IQOS”, “HEETS” and “TEREA” which predate the date of registration of the disputed domain name by several years, which marks when put together are similar to the disputed domain name; and, (ii) the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name since he does not appear to own any trademark rights either in full or in parts over “IQOSHEETSTEREA” nor to be commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use; and, (iii) the prior use of the disputed domain name as demonstrated by the screenshots submitted by the Complainant (Annex 8), which have not been contested by the Respondent, shows that the Respondent, in fact had knowledge of the Complainant and its products sold under its trademarks and on balance of probabilities, intentionally attempted to attract users to its website for commercial gain, by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website, which clearly is indicative of bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name. The Panel also notes that the submissions of the Complainant to establish the existence of all the three elements under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, as narrated hereinabove have also not been specifically rebutted by the Respondent. In this regard, the Panel also refers to Lonza Ltd. v. Ry Guy, try lonza, WIPO Case No. D2025-1708. Accordingly, the Panel orders the transfer of the disputed domain name. 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. /Saisunder Nedungal Vidhya Bhaskar/ Saisunder Nedungal Vidhya Bhaskar Sole Panelist Date: September 24, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy