Philip Morris Products S.A. v.
Claim Number: FA1811001815603
Complainant: Philip Morris Products S.A. of Neuchâtel, Switzerland.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: Boehmert & Boehmert Anwaltspartnerschaft mbB of BERLIN, Germany.
Respondent: yan zhang of shenzhen, Guangdong, International, CN.
Respondent Representative: none
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Merchant Law Group LLP
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Examiner in this proceeding.
Debrett Gordon Lyons, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: November 9, 2018
Commencement: November 9, 2018
Default Date: November 27, 2018
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 requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Findings of Fact:
Even though 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 is 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.
Complainant provided documentary evidence that it is the registered owner of Swiss national trademark registration number 660918 for IQOS and has provided documents to show that the trademark is in current use.
The disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s trademark and merely adds the extension “.love”. It is well established that the top level domain name is generally not an element of distinctiveness that can be taken into consideration when evaluating the identity or confusing similarity between trademark and disputed domain name. The Examiner thus finds that the domain name is identical to Complainant’s trademark and that Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.1.
[1.2.6.2.] The Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the disputed domain name.
The disputed domain name is used in connection with a website providing products having no connection with Complainant’s goods sold under the trademark.
Complainant argues that Respondent has no right or legitimate interest to the disputed domain name, that he has never been authorized by Complainant to register the disputed domain name, that he has no connection or affiliation with Complainant, and that there has been no bona fide use of the domain name.
Respondent did not deny these assertions in any way and therefore failed to prove any rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. Accordingly, the Examiner finds that Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the domain name and that Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.2.
[1.2.6.3.] The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Examiner finds it plain that Respondent targeted Complainant and its trademark, as the disputed domain name fully incorporates Complainant’s well-established trademark which has been in use. The trademark is an arbitrary and distinctive term and absent a response there is no plausible reason to find registration of the domain name by Respondent in good faith. The actual use of the domain name has been in bad faith since it has been used to offer for sale goods not put on the market by Complainant.
The Examiner finds that the domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith and that the Complainant satisfied the elements of URS Procedure 1.2.6.3.
No abuse or material falsehood.
After reviewing Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that Complainant has demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby orders the following domain names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Debrett Gordon Lyons, Examiner
Dated: November 28, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page