URS DEFAULT DETERMINATION

Philip Morris Products S.A. v. HAMSTVO.IN.UA
Claim Number: FA2009001910819

DOMAIN NAME

<iqosua.pro>

PARTIES

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

	Respondent: Andriy Daniljuk / HAMSTVO.IN.UA of Zhytomyr, Zhitomirskaya, II, UA

REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS

	Registries: Afilias Limited
	Registrars: PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com

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.
	Lars Karnøe, as Examiner

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

	Complainant Submitted: September 1, 2020
	Commencement: September 1, 2020
	Default Date: September 16, 2020
	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: [OptionalComment]

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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown that the disputed domain name is identical to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. It is well established that the specific top level of a domain name such as in casu ".pro" does not affect the domain name for the purpose of determining whether it is is identical or confusingly similar, neither does it affect this determination that merely descriptive terms have been added to the trademark as in this case "ua" referring clearly to the country code for Ukraine.

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

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant has to the satisfaction of the panel, shown the Respondent to have no rights or legitimate interest in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is not affiliated with him nor authorized by him in any way to use his trademark in a domain name or a website. The Complainant does not carry out any activity for, nor have any business with the Respondent.

[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.

Determined: Finding for Complainant

The Complainant has, to the satisfaction of the Panel, shown the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. Given the well-known character of the trademark, it is clear and not opposed that the Respondent has registered the domain name with knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark. In addition, the disputed domain name is not used for any bona fide offerings. The disputed domain name seems merely to be registered to generate traffic to the website from which the Respondent conducts his business. All these elements lead to the conclusion that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to the Respondent's website for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainants trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of such website.

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 was neither abusive nor contained material falsehoods.

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:

iqosua.pro

Lars Karnøe
Examiner
Dated: September 18, 2020

Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.

Click Here to return to our Home Page