Even though the Respondent has defaulted, URS Procedure 1.2.6, requires Complainant to make a prima facie case, proven by clear and convincing evidence, for each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.

[URS 1.2.6.1] The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word mark:
  (i) for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use; or
  (ii) that has been validated through court proceedings; or
  (iii) that is specifically protected by a statute or treaty in effect at the time the URS complaint is filed.

The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant's mark because it incorporates its "IQOS" registered mark, simply adding the gTLD ".bar". Adding a gTLD is not sufficient to escape the finding that the domain name is identical to the Complainant's "IQOS" trademark.

[URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name.

The Registrant is in no way related to the Complainant's business, and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register and use the disputed domain. Furthermore, Complainant has shown based on clear and convincing evidence that the Respondent is using the domain name to promote goods not related to the Complainant, which is not a bona fide use. Respectively, the Respondent has no rights and legitimate interests in the domain name.

[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
  a. Registrant has registered or 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 documented out-of pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
  b. Registrant has registered the domain name in order to prevent the trademark holder or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Registrant has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
  c. Registrant registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
  d. By using the domain name Registrant has intentionally attempted to attract for commercial gain, Internet users to Registrant's web site 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 Registrant's web site or location or of a product or service on that web site or location.

The evidence provided by the Complainant clearly show that the Respondent is prominently using the Complainant's IQOS trademark and copyright protected marketing material on the website, while never identifying its true identity. Respectively, the fourth "bad faith" factor identified in URS Rule 1.2.6.3 applies here because such use by the Respondent qualifies for an attempt to attract Internet users looking for Complainant's goods and to purposefully mislead users as to the source, sponsorship, or endorsement of the offerings under the disputed domain. Particularly, while using the Complainant's IQOS mark, the Respondent also offers products unrelated to the Complainant, which is not a bona fide use. According to established practice, the Respondent must use its website to sell only the trademarked goods; otherwise, it could be using the trademark to bait Internet users and then switch them to other goods. See Nikon, Inc. v. Technilab, WIPO Case No. D2000-1774 (February 26, 2001) (use of Nikon-related domain names to sell Nikon and competitive cameras was not a legitimate use); Kanao v. J.W. Roberts Co., Case No. 0109 (CPR July 25, 2001) (bait and switch is not legitimate). Also, concealing its identity by the Respondent while using the IQOS trademark further demonstrates bad faith.

The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods.

After reviewing the parties submissions, the Examiner determines that the Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain name(s) be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration:

iqos.bar

	Complainant Submitted: November 1, 2019
	Commencement: November 1, 2019
	Default Date: November 18, 2019
	Having reviewed the communications records, the Examiner finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under URS Procedure Paragraphs 3 and 4 and Rule 4 of the Rules for the Uniform Rapid Suspension System (the "Rules").

	Complainant: Philip Morris Products S.A. of Neuchâtel, II, Switzerland
	Complainant Representative: DM KISCH INC Andrew Papadopoulos of Sandton, II, South Africa

	Respondent: ON-Store / Mykola Omelchenko ON-Store ON-Store of Kiev, II, UA

	Registries: Punto 2012 Sociedad Anonima Promotora de Inversion de Capital Variable
	Registrars: Tucows.com Co.

	The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
	Natalia Stetsenko, as Examiner