Westmore · UDRP DecisionMarlboro.blue, Marlboro.red
The Panel ordered the transfer of <marlboro.blue> and <marlboro.red>. It found each domain identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MARLBORO mark, found no evidence of Respondent rights or legitimate interests after the Complainant made a prima facie case, and found bad faith based on the totality of the circumstances surrounding the passive holding, including the well-known character of the mark, the Respondent’s default, and the unchallenged allegation of identity concealment.
The timeline behind marlboro.blue
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The decision illustrates that passive holding can satisfy the UDRP bad-faith requirement when the surrounding circumstances point to bad faith. Here, the exact reproduction of a well-known mark in two domains, the absence of any demonstrated legitimate interest, the Respondent’s default, and the unresolved but unchallenged identity-concealment allegation were assessed cumulatively rather than treating inactivity as defeating the Complaint.
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. Trace Diggins, Domain Proxy Case No. D2014-1780 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philip Morris USA Inc. of Richmond, Virginia, United States of America, represented by Arnold & Porter LLP, United States of America. The Respondent is Trace Diggins, Domain Proxy of Tampa, Florida, United States of America. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <marlboro.blue> and <marlboro.red> are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 10, 2014. On October 13, 2014, the Center transmitted to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On October 15, 2014, the Registrar transmitted to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. In response to a notification by the Center regarding the contact details of the Registrar, the Complainant filed an amended Complaint on October 19, 2014. The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amended 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 22, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 11, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 12, 2014. The Center appointed Professor Ilhyung Lee as the sole panelist in this matter on December 2, 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 Complainant is in the business of making and selling cigarettes, and has used for its products various trademarks that feature the MARLBORO designation. The Complainant has received multiple registrations from the United States Patent and Trademark Office, including: MARLBORO, for “Cigarettes”, on April 14, 1908 (Registration Number 68502); and MARLBORO [stylized version] for “Tobacco Products, Namely, Cigarettes”, on July 10, 2012 (Registration Number 4171817). The Complainant also registered the domain name <marlboro.com> on March 6, 2000. The Respondent registered both disputed domain names <marlboro.blue> and <marlboro.red> on July 21, 2014. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends principally that: (i) the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and (iii) the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. In addition, the Complainant states , inter alia : “Respondents are not the real registrants of the Infringing Domain Names, but instead are listed in the registrant information as part of a domain registrant identity shielding service”; and “Respondents chose to use [the Complainant’s trademark] to divert Internet users from [the Complainant’s] website to the webpages to which ‘marlboro.red’ and ‘marlboro.blue’ resolve by capitalizing on the public recognition of the MARLBORO® mark”. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. Paragraphs 5(e) and 14(a) of the Rules permit the Panel to decide the dispute based on the Complaint. Under paragraph 14(b), the Panel may also draw appropriate inferences from the Respondent’s default. 6. Discussion and Findings In order to prevail, the Complainant must demonstrate that each element under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is present. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel concludes that the disputed domain names <marlboro.blue> and <marlboro.red> are identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MARLBORO mark. The disputed domain names differ from the mark only by the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (gTLD), “.blue” and “.red”. The Complainant has rights in the MARLBORO mark. The first element is demonstrated. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; the Complainant has met its initial burden of making a prima facie showing. Thus, the burden shifts to the Respondent to demonstrate any such rights or legitimate interests. The Respondent has defaulted. The Panel is unable to ascertain any evidence that would demonstrate the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, as described in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or otherwise. The second element is satisfied. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy requires that the Complainant must also show that each disputed domain name “has been registered and is being used in bad faith.” Paragraph 4(b) provides a non-exhaustive list of circumstances that are evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Here, Internet users who resort to the disputed domain names are directed to an inactive website that contains the text: “This webpage is not available.” In this regard, the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Second Edition (“WIPO Overview 2.0”) provides guidance: With comparative reference to the circumstances set out in paragraph 4(b) of the UDRP deemed to establish bad faith registration and use, panels have found that the apparent lack of so-called active use ( e.g ., to resolve to a website) of the domain name without any active attempt to sell or to contact the trademark holder (passive holding), does not as such prevent a finding of bad faith. The panel must examine all the circumstances of the case to determine whether the respondent is acting in bad faith. Examples of what may be cumulative circumstances found to be indicative of bad faith include the complainant having a well-known trademark, no response to the complaint having been filed, and the registrant’s concealment of its identity…. WIPO Overview 2.0 , paragraph 3.2. The Complainant’s MARLBORO mark for cigarettes is well-known, and was well-known when the Respondent registered the disputed domain names. The Respondent had ample opportunity to assert its respective rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, or to provide some explanation for their registration and use, but declined to participate in this proceeding. With the Respondent’s default, the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent is concealing its true identity is unchallenged. It is not necessary for the Panel to determine definitively the concealment issue. After consideration of all circumstances, the Panel concludes that the bad faith element under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy is present. The third element is established. 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 names <marlboro.blue> and <marlboro.red> be transferred to the Complainant. Ilhyung Lee Sole Panelist Date: December 15, 2014
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around marlboro.blue
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.