URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION
Philip Morris Products S.A. v.
Claim Number: FA1909001860911
DOMAIN NAME
<my-iqos.shop>
PARTIES
Complainant: Philip Morris Products S.A. of Neuchâtel, Switzerland | |
Complainant Representative: DM KISCH INC of Sandton, II, South Africa
|
Respondent: Privacy Protection of Kiev, II, UA | |
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: GMO Registry, Inc. | |
Registrars: Hosting Ukraine LLC |
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. | |
Darryl C. Wilson, as Examiner |
PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Complainant Submitted: September 6, 2019 | |
Commencement: September 9, 2019 | |
Default Date: September 24, 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
Procedural Findings: | ||
Multiple Complainants: Not Applicable. | ||
Multiple Respondents: Not Applicable. |
Findings of Fact: Complainant is an international tobacco company, with products sold in more than 180 markets worldwide. IQOS, an innovative reduced risk tobacco device, was launched in Japan, in 2014. Today due to extensive international sales and marketing efforts, in accordance with local laws, the IQOS product is sold in around 48 markets. The IQOS Trademark is registered with the Trademark Clearinghouse (Exhibit B) which is sufficient to prove actual use of the trademark (URS Rule 8.1.2.1). |
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 Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the distinctive terms IQOS covering numerous jurisdictions, including Swiss Registration IQOS (word) No. 660918 (See Exhibit A). The Disputed Domain identically adopts the Complainant�s registered trademark IQOS together with a merely generic supplement (URS Rule 1.2.6.1). The Complainant has met its burden here by clear and convincing evidence. [URS 1.2.6.2] Registrant has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name. Determined: Finding for Complainant 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 (URS Rule 1.2.6.2). The Complainant has met its burden here by clear and convincing evidence.
[URS 1.2.6.3] The domain name(s) was/were registered and is being used in bad faith.
Determined: Finding for Complainant Respondent registered the Disputed Domain on 23 August 2019. The Disputed Domain is used for website advertising of the Complainant�s IQOS products. The website holds out to be an official / endorsed dealer by prominently using the Complainant�s IQOS trademark in the domain name and at the top of the website, where internet users usually expect to find the name of the online shop / website owner. By registering a domain name comprising of the Complainant�s IQOS trademark and prominently using the Complainant�s IQOS trademark on the website, Respondent is attempting to attract internet users looking for Complainant�s goods, and purposefully misleading users as to the source of the website. The Complainant has met its burden here by clear and convincing evidence. 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:
The Complaint is well-founded. Respondent does not dispute that it wholly incorporated Complainant's mark without authorization, and engaged in activity misleading to consumers about the source, sponsorship, and endorsement of the goods/services featured on the resolving website.
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:
|
Darryl C. Wilson Examiner
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page