Westmore · UDRP DecisionMarlborotime.com
The Panel ordered transfer of marlborotime.com after finding all three UDRP elements satisfied. The domain incorporated the registered MARLBORO mark in its entirety with the dictionary word “time.” The Panel found no rights or legitimate interests because the Complainant established a prima facie case that went unrebutted, the domain created a risk of implied affiliation, and it displayed competitive sponsored advertisements. Given the well-known character of MARLBORO and the domain’s use for pay-per-click links for commercial gain, the Panel found bad-faith registration and use.
The timeline behind marlborotime.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 marlborotime.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how an entire well-known mark combined with an ordinary dictionary word can satisfy confusing similarity and simultaneously create an implied-affiliation concern. It also shows the significance of competitive pay-per-click advertising where the respondent offers no evidence of authorization, independent meaning, or other legitimate use.
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. Kamal Kumar, 1974 Case No. D2021-3359 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philip Morris USA Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by CSC Digital Brand Services Group AB, Sweden. The Respondent is Kamal Kumar, 1974, United States. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <marlborotime.com> 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 October 9, 2021. On October 11, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 12, 2021, 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 October 13, 2021 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 October 14, 2021. The Center verified that the Complaint together 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 October 19, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 8, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 11, 2021. The Center appointed Evan D. Brown as the sole panelist in this matter on December 10, 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 is in the business of providing a variety of tobacco-related products. It owns the MARLBORO trademark, which has been in use for well over a century, and for which the Complainant enjoys the benefit of registration, including United States Reg. No. 0068502, registered on April 14, 1908. According to the WhoIs records, the disputed domain name was registered on August 27, 2021. The Respondent has used the disputed domain name to display sponsored advertisements that appear on a parked page provided by the Registrar. Some of the advertisements are for products directly competitive with the Complainant’s business. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark; that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed, the Complainant must demonstrate that all of the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is 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 name, and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Panel finds that all three of these elements have been met in this case. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar This element requires the Panel to consider two issues: first, whether the Complainant has rights in a relevant mark; and, second, whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to that mark. This element under the Policy functions primarily as a standing requirement. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”), section 1.7. A registered trademark provides a clear indication that the rights in the mark shown on the trademark certificate belong to its respective owner. See Advance Magazine Publishers Inc., Les Publications Conde Nast S.A. v. Voguechen , WIPO Case No. D2014-0657 . The Complainant has demonstrated its rights in the MARLBORO mark by providing evidence of its trademark registrations. The disputed domain name incorporates the MARLBORO mark in its entirety with the dictionary word “time,” which does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s MARLBORO mark. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 1.8. The MARLBORO mark remains sufficiently recognizable for a showing of confusing similarity under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established this first element under the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel evaluates this element of the Policy by first looking to see whether the Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. If the Complainant makes that showing, the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests shifts to the Respondent. On this point, the Complainant asserts, among other things, that: (1) the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way, (2) the Complainant has not given the Respondent permission to use the Complainant’s trademarks in any manner, including in domain names, (3) the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name, and (4) the use of the disputed domain name to display competitive sponsored advertisements is not a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Panel finds that the Complainant has made the required prima facie showing. The Respondent has not presented evidence to overcome this prima facie showing. And nothing in the record otherwise tilts the balance in the Respondent’s favor. Furthermore, the nature of the disputed domain name, incorporating the Complainant’s widely known trademark and a dictionary term, carries a risk of implied affiliation and cannot constitute fair use as it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See WIPO Overview 3.0 , section 2.5.1. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established this second element under the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Because the MARLBORO mark is so well known, it is implausible to believe that the Respondent was not aware of it when it registered the disputed domain name. In the circumstances of this case, the mere registration of a domain name that is confusingly similar to a well-known trademark by an unaffiliated entity can by itself create a presumption of bad faith registration of the disputed domain name. Government Employees Insurance Company v. Joel Rosenzweig, RegC , WIPO Case No. D2021-1221 . Bad faith use is shown from the Respondent’s activities of using the disputed domain name to present pay-per-click links for commercial gain. Id . For these reasons, the Panel finds that the Complainant has successfully met this third element. 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 <marlborotime.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Evan D. Brown Sole Panelist Date: December 26, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around marlborotime.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.