URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Engin Sahin
Claim Number: FA1907001851011
DOMAIN NAME
<iqostr.store>
PARTIES
Complainant: Philip Morris Products S.A. of Neuchâtel, II, Switzerland | |
Complainant Representative: DM KISCH INC
Andrew Papadopoulos of Sandton, II, South Africa
|
Respondent: Engin Sahin Engin Sahin of Istanbul Bagcilar, II, TR | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: DotStore Inc. | |
Registrars: Nics Telekomunikasyon A.S. |
EXAMINER
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. | |
Ms. Kateryna Oliinyk, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: July 5, 2019 | |
Commencement: July 5, 2019 | |
Default Date: July 22, 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"). |
RELIEF SOUGHT
Complainant requests that the domain name be suspended for the life of the registration. |
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Clear and convincing evidence. |
FINDINGS and DISCUSSION
Findings of Fact: Findings of Fact: Under URS 9.1. the evidences will be the materials submitted with the Complaint and the Response, and those materials will serve as the entire records used by the Examiner to make a Determination. URS 8.2. reads that the burden of proof shall be clear and convincing evidences. Under URS 8.6. if the Examiner finds that all three standards provided for by URS 8.1. are satisfied by clear and convincing evidences and that there is no genuine contestable issue, then the Examiner shall issue a Determination in favour of the Complainant. Under URS 6.1. if at the expiration of the 14 Calendar Day Response period (or extended period if granted), the Registrant does not submit an answer, the Complaint proceeds to Default. Further URS 6.3. reads that all Default cases proceed to Examination for review on the merits of the claim. Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the distinctive term IQOS, covering numerous jurisdictions, including Swiss Registration IQOS (word) No. 660918. The IQOS Trademark is registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse. The Respondent and the website provided under the Disputed Domain are not in any way affiliated to the Complainant nor has the Complainant authorized Respondent�s registration and/or use of the Disputed Domain. By registering a domain name comprising of the Complainant�s IQOS trademark and prominently using the Complainant�s IQOS trademark, Respondent is attempting to attract internet users looking for Complainant�s goods, and purposefully misleading users as to the source of the website. 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. |
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: Determined: Finding for Complainant The registered domain name < iqostr.store> fully incorporates the word mark IQOS for which the Complainant holds valid registrations in different jurisdictions and that are in current use, the status and confirmation of use in which are supported by relevant entries with the Clearinghouse. It is well accepted that the top level domain is irrelevant in assessing identity or confusing similarity, thus new gTLD .store does not preclude confusion of the conflicting domain with the Complainant�s mark. Quite to the contrary, the new gTLD .store is the descriptor for the website which constitutes the online platform for selling IQOS. Addition of the two letters �tr� after the name �iqos� does not preclude confusion between the mark and the domain name as it will be regarded as the weak element of the domain name referring to the country code �TR� and implying the targeted territory and/or the audience of the website. Respectively, the Examiner finds that the contested domain name is confusingly similar with the Complainant�s word marks under URS 1.2.6.1. (i). [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant The Examiner determines that the Respondent is not commonly known by the IQOS name and that the Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant and has not received any license or consent, express or implied, to use Complainant�s marks in a domain name or otherwise. At the same time the website is used for commercial purpose as the online platform for selling the IQOS products, that cannot be qualified as the legitimate fair use. Therefore, the Examiner finds that the Complaint meets URS requirement of 1.2.6.2.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant The site must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant�s relationship with the trademark holder to confirm the bona fine offering of services, that is not the case. The website is designed so that it creates impression of the original website administrated by the Complainant, that is not the case. The bad faith exists where the respondent, by using the domain name, has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website 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 its website or location or of a product or service on its website or location. Thus, the Examiner finds the Contested Domain Names misleading that supports finding of bad faith registration under URS 1.2.6.3.(d). FINDING OF ABUSE or MATERIAL FALSEHOOD The Examiner may find that the Complaint was brought in an abuse of this proceeding or that it contained material falsehoods. The Examiner finds as follows:
DETERMINATION
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:
|
Ms. Kateryna Oliinyk Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page