Westmore · UDRP DecisionMarlboro.xyz
The Panel ordered transfer of <marlboro.xyz> after finding all three UDRP elements satisfied. The domain incorporated the famous MARLBORO mark in its entirety, the Respondent did not rebut the Complainant's prima facie case regarding rights or legitimate interests, and the Panel found opportunistic registration and commercial use designed to attract Internet users through confusion with the mark.
The timeline behind marlboro.xyz
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
This decision illustrates how an exact-match domain registered immediately after the launch of a new gTLD can support a finding of opportunistic bad faith when the incorporated mark is famous and the domain is used for commercial attraction. It also shows the practical importance of an unrebutted prima facie case under the second UDRP element.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Sakaria Mohamoud mussafah Case No. D2014-1667 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philip Morris USA Inc. of Richmond, Virginia, United States of America (“USA”), represented by Arnold & Porter, USA. The Respondent is Sakaria Mohamoud mussafah of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <marlboro.xyz> is registered with GoDaddy.com, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 25, 2014. On September 25, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 25, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact. The Center verified that the Complaint satisfied the formal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 2, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 22, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 23, 2014. The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on November 3, 2014. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background The Complainantmanufactures, markets, and sells cigarettes in the United States of America, including cigarettes under its MARLBORO trademark. Cigarettes bearing the MARLBORO trademark have been manufactured and sold by the Complainant and various predecessors in business since 1883. Details of two US Federal registrations of the Complainant’s MARLBORO trademark, the earlier dating from 1908, have been supplied to the Panel. The disputed domain name was registered on June 4, 2014. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant has drawn the Panel’s attention to various prior decisions under the UDRP, including Philip Morris USA Inc. v. ICS Inc. , WIPO Case No. D2013-1306 , in which its MARLBORO trademark has been recognized as famous. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name <marlboro.xyz> is identical or confusingly similar to its MARLBORO trademark, including its MARLBORO trademark in its entirety, with the addition solely of the irrelevant generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) indicator “.xyz”. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in that the Respondent was never known by any name or trade name that incorporates the word “Marlboro”, nor has the Respondent received any license, authorization, or consent, express or implied, from the Complainant to use its MARLBORO trademark in a domain name or in any other manner. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name, namely operating a directory site that has links to numerous other commercial sites, is use in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel agrees with panels in prior UDRP proceedings concerning the Complainant’s MARLBORO trademark that the trademark can be regarded as famous. It is well-established in decisions under the UDRP that generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) indicators ( e.g. , “.com”, “.info”, “.net”, “.org”) may be considered irrelevant in assessing confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name. The Panel agrees with this view and considers the gTLD “.xyz” indicator to be irrelevant in the present case. What remains in the disputed domain name is the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. Consequently, the disputed domain name is clearly identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MARLBORO trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests It is the predominant view of panels in previous UDRP decisions, with which the present Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by the complainant will generally be sufficient for the complainant to be deemed to have satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided the respondent does not come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name. The Respondent did not take the opportunity afforded to him to advance any claim to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel, therefore, accepts the Complainant’s contentions (above) under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy as establishing an un-rebutted prima facie case, and, accordingly, finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel is of the view that the finding that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, may lead, in appropriate circumstances, to a finding that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith. In the circumstances of the present case, in the Panel’s opinion, the Respondent could not reasonably have been unaware of the Complainant’s rights in its MARLBORO trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. Further, the fact that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name a mere two days after the launch of the new top level domain name “.xyz” on June 2, 2014 convinces the Panel that the Respondent was deliberately and opportunistically attempting to benefit unfairly from the goodwill inherent in the Complainant’s MARLBORO trademark when it registered the disputed domain name. The Panel regards these circumstances as making it appropriate for the Panel to find that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith and the Panel so finds. The Panel considers that the Respondent has been using the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the website operated under the disputed domain name, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the website, as set out in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is being used in bad faith, and that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. 7. Decision For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain name <marlboro.xyz> be transferred to the Complainant. George R. F. Souter Sole Panelist Date: November 17, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around marlboro.xyz
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.