Westmore · UDRP DecisionIqoselektroniksigara.com, Iqosperpa.com
The Panel ordered the transfer of both disputed domain names. It found them confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IQOS trademark because each incorporated IQOS in its entirety with additional descriptive or geographic terms. The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because it was unauthorized, was not commonly known by IQOS, and used the domains for online shops that appeared to offer IQOS and HEETS products without disclosing the parties’ relationship. The Panel found bad-faith registration and use based on the Respondent’s evident knowledge of the marks and its use of the marks, official product images, and promotional language to create a misleading impression of an official Turkish sales source.
The timeline behind iqoselektroniksigara.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind iqoselektroniksigara.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The case illustrates how an unauthorized retail site can fail the second and third UDRP elements when its domain, branding, imagery, and sales language collectively imply an official relationship. The absence of official product sales in the targeted country strengthened the Panel’s conclusion that the sites created a false impression of authorized market entry.
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 Products S.A. v. Serhat Kocapinar, Inlife Bilisim Case No. D2019-0467 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A. of Neuchâtel, Switzerland, represented by DM Kisch Inc., South Africa. The Respondent is Serhat Kocapinar, Inlife Bilisim of Istanbul, Turkey. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <iqoselektroniksigara.com> and <iqosperpa.com> are registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainRegistry.com 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 28, 2019. On February 28, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On March 1, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details. 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 4, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 24, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 28, 2019. The Center appointed Fabrizio Bedarida as the sole panelist in this matter on April 12, 2019. 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, Philip Morris Products S.A., a Swiss company established under the laws of Switzerland, is part of the group of companies affiliated to Philip Morris International Inc. (jointly referred to as “PMI”). PMI is one of the leading international tobacco companies, with products sold in approximately 180 countries. In the course of transforming its business from combustible cigarettes to Reduced Risk Products (or “RRPs”, which PMI defines as products that present, are likely to present, or have the potential to present less risk of harm to smokers who switch to those products instead of continuing to smoke), PMI has developed a number of products. One of these RRPs developed and sold by PMI is branded IQOS. IQOS is a controlled heating device into which specially designed tobacco products under the brand names “Heets” and “HeatSticks” are inserted and heated to generate a nicotine-containing aerosol. The Complainant has proven to be the owner of the IQOS and HEETS marks. The Complainant is inter alia the owner of: International Registration IQOS (word) No. 1218246 registered on July 10, 2014. International Registration IQOS (device) No. 1338099 registered on November 22, 2016. International Registration IQOS (device) No. 1329691 registered on August 10, 2016. The disputed domain names <iqoselektroniksigara.com> and <iqosperpa.com> were registered by the Respondent on October 9, 2018 and November 3, 2018 respectively. The Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names are linked to two online shops allegedly offering the Complainant’s Iqos and Heets branded products. On these websites a great number of the Complainant’s copyright-protected official product images and marketing materials are displayed. The content of the Respondent’s websites is in Turkish, and all prices are indicated in Turkish lira (TL). Both websites contain the designation “İQOS TÜRKİYE” at the top of the respective websites, and messages such as “IQOS Heets Sigara Satış Sitesi İstanbul” ( i.e., IQOS Heets Cigarette Sale Site Istanbul) and “İqos perpa mağazası. İqos orjinal sipariş sitesi” ( i.e ., İqos perpa store. İqos original order site). However, the Complainant’s Iqos and Heets branded products are not currently sold in Turkey. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the IQOS trademarks, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings In order for the Complainant to obtain the transfer of the disputed domain names, paragraphs 4(a)(i)-(iii) of the Policy require that the Complainant must demonstrate to the Panel that: (i) The disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service 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. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established rights in the IQOS trademark. The disputed domain name <iqosperpa.com> reproduces the IQOS trademark in its entirety combined with the term “perpa” ( i.e., the name of a trade center in the district of Şişli, Istanbul) and the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) indicator. The disputed domain name <iqoselektroniksigara.com> reproduces the IQOS trademark in its entirety combined with the descriptive terms “elektronik” (electronic) and “sigara” (cigarette) and the “.com” indicator. The gTLD suffix is generally disregarded under the test for confusing similarity for the purposes of the Policy, and the addition of descriptive and/ or geographical terms to a trademark in a domain name is normally considered insufficient in itself to avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the first element of the UDRP. In this sense WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.8 : “Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element”. The Panel finds that the Complainant’s IQOS trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain names, and that the addition of the terms “perpa” and “elektronik” and “sigara” respectively are insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity. Therefore, the Panel finds that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the IQOS trademark in which the Complainant has rights. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests This Panel finds that the Complainant has made a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has no connection or affiliation with the Complainant, and the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use or register any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s trademark. The Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the name “Iqos” or by any similar name. The Respondent does not appear to make any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names, or any use in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent’s behavior shows a clear intent to obtain unfair commercial gain, with a view to misleadingly diverting consumers or to tarnishing the trademarks owned by the Complainant. The Respondent offers for sale what appears to be the Complainant’s products, without disclosing the relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. Moreover, the illegitimacy of the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name is further shown by the fact that the Complainant does not currently offer its Iqos and/or Heets branded products for sale in Turkey, while the on-line shops hosted at the disputed domain names create the false impression that the Complainant has officially introduced the Iqos and/or Heets products into the Turkish market. Finally, the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions, alleging any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel, on the basis of the evidence presented, accepts and agrees with the Complainant’s contentions that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith and have been used in bad faith. Indeed, the Complainant gives several bases for its contention that the disputed domain names were registered and have been used in bad faith. Particularly relevant are the Complainant’s unchallenged assertions (which the Panel accepts and partially reports below) that: The Respondent could not be unaware of the existence of the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the disputed domain names; The term “Iqos” is purely imaginative, and is not commonly used to refer to tobacco products. Both the disputed domain names contain the Complainant’s IQOS trademark, and in addition one of them is combined with terms describing the Complainant’s products ( i.e., electronic cigarettes), and the other with a term “perpa”, which refers to a trade center in Istanbul where mainly electrical equipment is sold. It is therefore unlikely that the Respondent chose the disputed domain names without the intention of invoking a misleading association with the Complainant. It is evident also from the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the disputed domain names. It also appears that the Respondent started offering what appears to be the Complainant’s Iqos (and Heets) branded products immediately after registering the disputed domain names; The Respondent’s knowledge of the IQOS and HEETS marks is particularly obvious, given that the IQOS and HEETS logos are displayed on the websites at the disputed domain names; In addition, by displaying the Complainant’s registered trademarks (IQOS and HEETS) on the Respondent’s websites, the Respondent misled consumers into believing that the Complainant or an affiliated dealer were the source of the website. This suggestion is further supported by the Respondent’s use of the Complainant’s official product images on its websites and from the messages “IQOS Heets Sigara Satış Sitesi İstanbul” ( i.e ., IQOS Heets Cigarette Sale Site Istanbul) and “İqos perpa mağazası. İqos orjinal sipariş sitesi” ( i.e ., İqos perpa store. İqos original order site) which are also displayed on these websites. Further inference of bad faith is given by the fact that the Complainant does not currently offer its Iqos and/or Heets branded products for sale in Turkey, while the online shops provided under the disputed domain names clearly create the false impression that the Complainant has officially introduced the Iqos and/or Heets products into the Turkish market. This Panel finds that the above use of the disputed domain names constitutes a disruption of the Complainant’s business and qualifies as bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Finally, the Respondent has not responded to (nor denied) the assertions made by the Complainant in this proceeding. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied 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 names <iqoselektroniksigara.com> and <iqosperpa.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Fabrizio Bedarida Sole Panelist Date: April 18, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around iqoselektroniksigara.com
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.