Westmore · UDRP DecisionIqosurunleri.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <iqosurunleri.com>. It found the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IQOS trademark because it incorporated IQOS with the Turkish descriptive term “urunleri,” meaning “products.” The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because its sales website did not accurately and prominently disclose its lack of authorization or relationship with the Complainant and therefore did not satisfy the Oki Data reseller test. The Panel also found bad-faith registration and use because the Respondent knew of the IQOS mark and used the Domain Name to attract users for commercial gain through confusion as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement.
The timeline behind iqosurunleri.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 iqosurunleri.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates that a purported reseller cannot establish rights or legitimate interests merely by offering trademarked products. Even where authenticity remains unresolved, the absence of an accurate and prominent disclosure of the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner can defeat the Oki Data test. It also shows that prior commercial use may support bad faith despite the domain being inactive when the case is decided.
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. Anl Girgin, Teknoloji Sarayi Case No. D2019-0662 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A. of Neuchâtel, Switzerland, represented by D.M. Kisch Inc., South Africa. The Respondent is Anl Girgin, Teknoloji Sarayi of Denizli, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <iqosurunleri.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Atak Domain Hosting Internet ve Bilgi Teknolojileri Limited Sirketi d/b/a Atak Teknoloji (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 25, 2019. On the same day, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On March 27, 2019, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on March 28, 2019, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 1, 2019. 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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 16, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 6, 2019. The Center received email communications from the Respondent on March 30, and April 1, 2019. Following the Respondent’s email communications, the proceedings were suspended on April 3, 2019, following the Complainant’s request. Upon the Complainant’s request of April 11, 2019, the proceedings were reinstituted on that same day. The Respondent did not submit a substantive response. The Center notified the Parties of the Commencement of Panel Appointment Process on May 8, 2019. The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on May 13, 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 and its related entities are a corporate group focused on the sale of tobacco products. The Complainant group has sales in 180 countries and sells a number of leading tobacco brands such as MARLBORO. The Complainant group has developed a heating device branded IQOS into which tobacco products (including products sold by the Complainant under the brand name HEETS) are inserted to generate a nicotine-containing aerosol. The IQOS system was first launched in Japan in 2014 and is available in 43 markets across the world, not including Turkey, the location of the Respondent. The IQOS system is almost exclusively distributed through the Complainant group’s official stores and selected authorised distributors and retailers. The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for IQOS (the “IQOS Mark”), including an international registration, registered on July 10, 2014 (No. 1218246), designating jurisdictions including the European Union, India, Israel, and Viet Nam and an international registration for a device containing IQOS (“IQOS Device”) registered August 10, 2016 (No. 1329691), which designates various jurisdictions including Turkey. The Domain Name was registered on October 30, 2018, by the Respondent, using a privacy service. The Domain Name contains the IQOS Mark and the Turkish word “urunleri” translated as “products”. The Domain Name is presently inactive but prior to the commencement of the proceeding resolved to a website (“the Respondent’s Website”) in Turkish that reproduced the IQOS Mark and various product images and marketing materials in which the Complainant holds copyright. The Respondent’s Website purports to offer the Complainant’s IQOS and HEETS products, notwithstanding that the Complainant does not currently offer its IQOS and HEETS products in Turkey. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant makes the following contentions: (i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IQOS Mark; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Complainant is the owner of the IQOS Mark, having registered the IQOS Mark in numerous jurisdictions, including Turkey. The Domain Name reproduces the IQOS Mark along with the descriptive Turkish word “urunleri” that does not distinguish the Domain Name from the IQOS Mark. There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known as the Domain Name nor does the Respondent have any authorization from the Complainant to register the Domain Name. The Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial fair use of the Domain Name. Rather the Respondent is using the Domain Name to create a website that purports to sell the Complainant’s products and reproduces the Complainant’s marks and copyrighted photos and promotional material, such use not being bona fide . The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. By using the Domain Name for a website that reproduces the Complainant’s copyrighted photos and purports to represent the Complainant, the Respondent is clearly aware of the IQOS Mark and is using it to deceive consumers as to its affiliation with the Complainant. Such conduct amounts to registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The Respondent made two communications to the Center. The first communication appeared to contain an offer to sell the Domain Name and the latter requested that communications between the Center and the Respondent be in the Turkish language. The Panel notes that paragraph 11 of the Rules provides that unless otherwise agreed by the Parties or subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise the language of the proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement and the language of the registration agreement in this case is English. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar To prove this element the Complainant must have trade or service mark rights and the Domain Name must be identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade or service mark. The Complainant is the owner of the IQOS Mark, having registrations for IQOS as a trade mark in Turkey as well as in various other jurisdictions. The Domain Name incorporates the IQOS Mark with the addition of the descriptive Turkish word “urunleri” meaning “products”. The addition of such a term to a complainant’s mark does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, see section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Henry Chan , WIPO Case No. D2004-0056 . (An individual viewing the Domain Name may be confused into thinking that the Domain Name refers to a website in some way connected to the Complainant.) The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IQOS Mark. Consequently, the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is satisfied. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests To succeed on this element, a complainant must make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. If such a prima facie case is made out, then the burden of production shifts to the respondent to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the domain names. Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy enumerates several ways in which a respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a domain name: “Any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the panel to be proved based on its evaluation of all evidence presented, shall demonstrate your rights or legitimate interests to the domain name for purposes of paragraph 4(a)(ii): (i) before any notice to you of the dispute, your use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or (ii) you (as an individual, business, or other organization) have been commonly known by the domain name, even if you have acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or (iii) you are making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.” The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way. It has not been authorized by the Complainant to register or use the Domain Name or to seek the registration of any domain name incorporating the IQOS Mark or a mark similar to the IQOS Mark. There is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by of the Domain Name or any similar name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the Domain Name in connection with a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Respondent has used the Domain Name to operate a website purporting to sell legitimate IQOS and HEETS products. If the Complainant’s products sold on the Respondent’s Website are not genuine products produced by the Complainant, the Respondent’s use of the Domain Name does not grant it rights or legitimate interests since it is using the Complainant’s IQOS Mark for a site selling counterfeit or at minimum unauthorised products. Even if the Respondent is offering IQOS and HEETS products from the Respondent’s Website, such use does not automatically grant it rights and legitimate interests. The principles that govern whether a reseller of genuine goods has rights or legitimate interests have been set out in a variety of UDRP decisions, starting with the case of Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc ., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 . The WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.8 summarizes the consensus views of UDRP panels in assessing claims of nominative (fair) use by resellers or distributors in the following manner: “… Panels have recognized that resellers, distributors, or service providers using a domain name containing the complainant’s trademark to undertake sales or repairs related to the complainant’s goods or services may be making a bona fide offering of goods and services and thus have a legitimate interest in such domain name. Outlined in the “Oki Data test”, the following cumulative requirements will be applied in the specific conditions of a UDRP case: (i) the respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue; (ii) the respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods or services; (iii) the site must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark holder; and (iv) the respondent must not try to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect the trademark. The Oki Data test does not apply where any prior agreement, express or otherwise, between the parties expressly prohibits (or allows) the registration or use of domain names incorporating the complainant’s trademark.” In this case, the Respondent’s Website does not accurately or prominently disclose the Respondent’s relationship with the Complainant, in particular that it is not an authorized dealer or has any particular connection with the Complainant. Rather, its prominent display of the IQOS Mark, its reproduction of the Complainant’s official product images without the Complainant’s authorization and the absence of a disclaimer or any explanation as to the identity of the operator of the Respondent’s Website results in the impression that the Respondent’s Website is an official website of the Complainant. Even in the event that the Respondent is reselling genuine IQOS and HEETS products, its use of the Domain Name for the Respondent’s Website in the circumstances described above does not grant it rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent has had the opportunity to put on evidence of its rights or legitimate interests, including submissions as to why its conduct amounts to a right or legitimate interest in the Domain Name under the Policy. In the absence of such a response the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith For the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii), the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith: “(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent has registered or has 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 trade mark or service mark or to a competitor of the complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of its documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or (ii) The respondent has registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or (iii) The respondent has registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or (iv) by using the domain name, the respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on the respondent’s website or location (Policy, paragraph 4(b)).” The Panel finds that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and its reputation in the IQOS Mark at the time the Domain Name was registered. The Respondent’s Website contains numerous references to the Complainant, including offering the Complainant group’s products for sale and reproducing the Complainant’s official marketing material. The registration of the Domain Name in awareness of the IQOS Mark and in the absence of rights or legitimate interests amounts under these circumstances to registration in bad faith. The Respondent registered the Domain Name for the purposes of operating a website specifically to sell either the Complainant’s products or counterfeit products that compete with the Complainant’s. The Respondent is using the Domain Name, being confusingly similar to the IQOS Mark, to sell products, be they genuine or otherwise, in competition with the Complainant and without the Complainant’s approval and without meeting the Oki Data test. Consequently the Panel finds that the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and the Complainant’s IQOS Mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s Website. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered and used the Domain Name in bad faith under 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 Domain Name <iqosurunleri.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Nicholas Smith Sole Panelist Date: May 27, 2019
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around iqosurunleri.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.