Philip Morris Products S.A. v.
Claim Number: FA1904001838938
Complainant: Philip Morris Products S.A. of Neuchâtel, International, Switzerland.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: DM KISCH INC of Sandton, International, South Africa.
Respondent: Valentina Shilyaeva of qq, International, RU.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotStore Inc.
Registrars: GoDaddy.com, LLC
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.
Eleni Lappa, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: April 16, 2019
Commencement: April 16, 2019
Default Date: May 1, 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 requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
Complainant is an international tobacco company, with products sold worldwide. IQOS, is an electronic heating device for tobacco which offers an alternative, to regular tobacco smokers. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the distinctive terms IQOS covering numerous jurisdictions, including Swiss Registration IQOS (word) No. 660918.
Respondent registered the Disputed Domain on 03 February 219. The Disputed Domain is used for a website advertising the Complainant’s IQOS products, as well as unrelated third party products. Respondent submitted no evidence of any related rights to the domain name under review.
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, requires Complainant to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be suspended.
1. The registered domain name(s) is/are identical or confusingly similar to a word or mark [URS/.usRS 1.2.6.1]: for which the Complainant holds a valid national or regional registration and that is in current use
2. Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name [URS/.usRS 1.2.6.2]
3. The domain name(s) was/were registered and are being used in bad faith [URS 1.2.6.3]
With regard to URS 1.2.6.1:
With regard to URS 1.2.6.2:
Respondent has submitted no evidence of legitimate rights or interests related to the Disputed Domain Name. Therefore the requirement of URS 1.2.6.2 is fulfilled
With regard to URS 1.2.6.3
In order to substantiate the element of bad faith, the Rules state the following, non-exclusive list of circumstances in an effort to assist the determination of the Examiner in relation to bad faith, that may nonetheless determine it exists on the basis of other grounds:
1.2.6.3. that the domain was registered and is being used in bad faith.
A non-exclusive list of circumstances that demonstrate bad faith registration and use by the Registrant include:
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.
In the matter at hand, Respondent is using the trademark rights of Complainant both on the Disputed Domain Name as well as on the website it operates thereon, by offering IQOS and other third party products unrelated to Complainant. It is apparent that Respondent is therefore, among else, intentionally attempting 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. Therefore the requirement of URS 1.2.6.3 is fulfilled.
After reviewing the Complainant’s 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 names be SUSPENDED for the duration of the registration.
Eleni Lappa, Examiner
Dated: May 01, 2019
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page