Philip Morris Products S.A. v. REDACTED PRIVACY
Claim Number: FA2205001997588
Complainant: Philip Morris Products S.A. of Neuchâtel, International, Switzerland.
Complainant Representative:
Complainant Representative: DM KISCH INC of Sandton, International, South Africa.
Respondent: Mikhail Terentiev of Moscow, Moscow, International, RU.
Respondent Representative: «cFirstName» «cMiddle» «cLastName»
REGISTRIES and REGISTRARS
Registries: Binky Moon, LLC
Registrars: BigRock Solutions Ltd
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.
James Bridgeman, as Examiner.
Complainant submitted: May 24, 2022
Commencement: May 24, 2022
Default Date: June 8, 2022
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 disputed domain name be suspended for the life of the registration.
Clear and convincing evidence.
The disputed domain name was registered on June 29 2020 and resolves to a website advertising and selling the Complainant’s IQOS products.
There is no information about Respondent except for that provided in the Complaint, the Registrar’s WhoIs and the information provided by the Registrar in response to the request by the Forum for information about the registration details of the disputed domain name.
Complainant’s Submissions
Complainant submits that it is a manufacturer of a nicotine delivery device which is designed to operate using tobacco sticks, branded “HEETS”.
Complainant submits that the disputed domain name identically adopts Complainant’s registered trademark HEETS together with a merely generic supplement (URS Rule 1.2.6.1).
Complainant submits that Respondent has no legitimate right or interest to the domain name [URS/.usRS 1.2.6.2], arguing that Respondent and the website provided under the disputed domain name are not in any way affiliated to Complainant nor has Complainant authorized Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name (URS Rule 1.2.6.2).
Complainant submits that by registering a domain name comprising of Complainant’s HEETS trademark and prominently using Complainant’s HEETS trademark and copyright protected marketing material 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. By using Complainant’s HEETS trademark in the disputed domain name and hiding the identity of the website provider, Respondent is purposefully misleading users as to the source, sponsorship, or endorsement of the offerings under the disputed domain name
Complainant submits that such use of the HEETS trademark by the Respondent while it conceals its identity, does not constitute a “bona fide offering” pursuant to the “OKI Data Principles” and unquestionably demonstrates bad faith. Respondent is intentionally using Complainant’s HEETS trademark to confuse and attract customers to its site
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered or is being used in bad faith [.usRS 1.2.6.3]. By registering the disputed domain name, which wholly adopts Complainant’s HEETS trademark and falsely suggests an affiliation with Complainant, it is clear that Respondent is illegitimately and directly targeting Complainant (URS Rule 1.2.6.3).
Respondent’s Submissions
Respondent failed to make any timely submissions.
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.
Examiner’s Reasons for Decision
This Examiner refuses the application because the URS sets a high test requiring clear and convincing evidence in order for a complainant to succeed. Complainant has failed to meet this test.
Complainant bases the Complaint on claimed registered trademark rights in the HEETS trademark to which it alleges the disputed domain name is identical and confusingly similar. The evidence submitted by Complainant however relates to Swiss registered trademark IQOS (word) No. 660918.
Complainant has therefore failed to adduce clear and convincing evidence of its rights in the HEETS mark and in particular its claimed trademark registrations for the HEETS mark.
After reviewing Complainant’s submissions, the Examiner determines that Complainant has NOT demonstrated all three elements of the URS by a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the Examiner hereby Orders the following domain names be RETURNED to the control of Respondent
James Bridgeman, Examiner
Dated: June 10, 2022
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page