Westmore · UDRP DecisionHeetsiqos-uae.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <heetsiqos-uae.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar because it incorporated both HEETS and IQOS, while the hyphen and geographic abbreviation “uae” did not prevent confusing similarity. The Complainant established an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests. Bad faith was established by the deliberate appropriation of the two marks and use of the domain for a website offering goods competing with those of the Complainant.
The timeline behind heetsiqos-uae.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 heetsiqos-uae.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
This decision illustrates a straightforward multiple-mark and geographic-modifier pattern. Incorporating two marks commonly used together strengthened the association with the Complainant, while the addition of “uae” reinforced a geographic meaning rather than distinguishing the domain. The competing commercial use and absence of rebuttal were central to the remaining elements.
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. Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0160003643 / Farooq Ahmed, Heets & Iqos UAE Case No. D2020-3344 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A., Switzerland, represented by D.M. Kisch Inc., South Africa. The Respondent is Contact Privacy Inc. Customer 0160003643, Canada, / Farooq Ahmed, Heets & Iqos UAE, United Arab Emirates. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <heetsiqos-uae.com> is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 9, 2020. On December 9, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On December 9, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 13, 2020, 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 December 14, 2020. 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 December 15, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 4, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on January 7, 2021. The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on January 14, 2021. 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. is a company which is part of the group of companies affiliated to Philip Morris International Inc. (jointly referred to as “PMI”). PMI is a leading international tobacco company, with products sold in approximately 180 countries. PMI is known for innovating across its brand portfolio. 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 versus continued smoking), PMI has developed a number of RRP products. One of these RRPs developed and sold by PMI is called “Iqos”. “Iqos” is a precisely controlled heating device into which specially designed tobacco products under the brand names “HEETS” or “HEATSTICKS” are inserted and heated to generate a flavourful nicotine-containing aerosol. The IQOS system also consists of an IQOS Pocket Charger, specially designed to charge the IQOS Holder (collectively referred to as the IQOS System). The IQOS System was first launched by PMI in Nagoya, Japan in 2014 and has obtained an 18.3% share of the market in Japan. Today the IQOS System is available in key cities in around 61 markets across the world. As a result of an investment of over USD 6 billion and extensive international sales (in accordance with local laws), the IQOS System has achieved considerable international success and reputation, and approximately 16.4 million relevant consumers using the IQOS System worldwide. To date, the IQOS System has been almost exclusively distributed through PMI’s official IQOS stores and websites and selected authorized distributors and retailers. For its new innovative smoke-free products, the Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademark registrations internationally, details of which have been supplied to the Panel. These include the following registrations in the United Arab Emirates, where the Respondent is located: United Arab Emirates Registration IQOS (word) No. 211139 registered on March 16, 2016; United Arab Emirates Registration HEETS (word) No. 256864 registered on December 25, 2017; and United Arab Emirates Registration HEETS (word/device) No. 256867 registered on December 25, 2017. The disputed domain name was registered on November 17, 2020, and is currently in use in connection with a website offering products for sale, in direct competition with the goods traded in by the Complainant. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its HEETS and IQOS trademarks, in particular that it contains both the Complainant’s HEETS and IQOS trademarks, with the mere addition of a descriptive or non distinctive element, namely the initial letters “uae” of the country United Arab Emirates. The Complainant alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in particular that the Complainant has never granted permission to use its HEETS and IQOS trademarks in connection with the registration of a domain name, or otherwise. The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and is being used in bad faith in connection with a website offering goods competing with goods sold by the Complainant. 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 is satisfied from the information provided that the Complainant has sufficient rights in its HEETS and IQOS trademarks for the purposes of these proceedings. It is well-established in prior decisions under the UDRP, with which the Panel agrees, that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant when comparing a trademark with a disputed domain name. Accordingly, the Panel considers the gTLD “.com” to be irrelevant in the circumstances of the present case, and so finds. It has been well-established in prior decisions under the UDRP that a disputed domain name which wholly contains a complainant’s trademark together with the mere addition of descriptive or non distinctive elements is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity between a trademark and a disputed domain name. The Complainant’s HEETS and IQOS trademarks are generally used together in commerce. The disputed domain name contains both the Complainant’s HEETS and IQOS, followed by a hyphen, and the letters “uae”. Abbreviation of the names of countries with more than one word in its name is in common usage, UK and USA being prominent examples. It has been the consistent finding in prior decisions under the Policy that geographical names are regarded as descriptive or non distinctive elements for the purpose of considering confusing similarity. The Panel in this case agrees with this general finding and, in the circumstances of the present case, has no difficulty in finding that “uae” and the hyphen in the circumstances of this case does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The overall impression given by the disputed domain name in this case, in the opinion of the Panel, is that it is likely to be associated with the proprietor of the two trademarks in the domain name, giving rise to automatic confusion between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s trademarks. In these circumstances, 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 consensus view of UDRP panels, with which the 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 evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the complainant has presented a sufficient prima facie case to succeed under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. The Panel considers the submissions put forward by the Complainant as sufficient to be regarded as a prima facie case, and the Respondent did not take the opportunity to advance any claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to rebut this prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel is of the view that the finding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name can lead, in appropriate circumstances, to a finding of registration of a disputed domain name in bad faith. The circumstance of the present case, in which the Panel regards it as self-evident that the Complainant’s HEETS and IQOS trademarks were deliberately appropriated in the disputed domain name, are such that the Panel concludes that a finding of registration in bad faith is justified, and so finds. It is well-established in prior decisions under the Policy that the use of a disputed domain name in connection with a website with links to goods or services competing with those of the Complainant is sufficient to justify a finding of use in bad faith, and, in the circumstances of the present case, the Panel so finds. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements 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 <heetsiqos-uae.com> be transferred to the Complainant. George R. F. Souter Sole Panelist Date: January 28, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around heetsiqos-uae.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.