Westmore · UDRP DecisionIqostamirankara.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <iqostamirankara.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IQOS trademark because IQOS remained recognizable despite the addition of the Turkish term “tamiri” and the geographic term “Ankara.” The Respondent’s repair-services website prominently used the Complainant’s IQOS and hummingbird marks without adequately disclosing the lack of affiliation. This defeated any claim to legitimate repair-service use under the Oki Data criteria and supported a finding that the Respondent intentionally sought commercial gain through confusion.
The timeline behind iqostamirankara.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 iqostamirankara.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The decision illustrates how a domain combining a trademark with a repair-related term and location may create implied affiliation, particularly when the associated service website prominently uses the trademark owner’s branding and fails to disclose its independent status. It also shows that a repair business must satisfy the Oki Data criteria to establish a legitimate interest; merely providing services involving genuine branded products is insufficient where the presentation falsely suggests authorization.
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. orhan kiremit Case No. D2021-3468 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A., Switzerland, represented by D.M. Kisch Inc., South Africa. The Respondent is orhan kiremit, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <iqostamirankara.com> is 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 20, 2021. On October 20, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 21, 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 22, 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 22, 2021. 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 October 26, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 15, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any formal response but sent email communications in English on October 26, 2021 and in Turkish November 28, 2021. On November 16, 2021, the Center informed the Parties that it will proceed to panel appointment. The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on November 24, 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 part of the Philip Morris International Inc. group, which is a group of companies active in the field of tobacco and smoke-free products. The Complainant owns various word and figurative IQOS trademark registrations around the world, including in Turkey, where the Respondent appears to be located. According to the evidence provided by the Complainant, the Complainant is, inter alia , the registered owner of the International Trademark Registration No. 1218246 (registered on July 10, 2014) covering trademark protection in many countries (including Turkey), inter alia , for products covered in classes 9, 11, and 34 (Annex 6 and 7 to the Complaint). The Complainant also owns and operates various domain names, which incorporate the IQOS trademark, such as <iqos.com>. The Respondent is reportedly an individual from Turkey. The disputed domain name was registered on October 2, 2019. The screenshots, as provided by the Complainant (Annex 8 to the Complaint), show that the disputed domain name resolves to a website in Turkish language offering repair services for the Complainant’s smoke-free IQOS products. On the website at the disputed domain name, the IQOS trademark as well as a figurative hummingbird trademark of the Complainant (Annex 6 to the Complaint) are prominently used (Annex 8 to the Complaint). 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. The Complainant is of the opinion that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its IQOS trademark. Furthermore, the Complainant argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. It is rather argued that the disputed domain name falsely suggests that there is some official or authorized link between the Complainant and the Respondent. Finally, it is argued that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant particularly argues that the Respondent must have been well aware of the Complainant and its IQOS trademark, when registering the disputed domain name, particularly as the Respondent uses the Complainant’s IQOS and further trademarks on the website linked to the disputed domain name as well as product images without authorization and disclosure of the missing relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent. B. Respondent The Respondent did not formally reply to the Complainant’s contentions. In its email communication of October 26, 2021, the Respondent merely raised the question “what exactly do you want from us?”, followed by an email communication of November 28, 2021, asking the Center to inform the Respondent about the merits of the case in Turkish language. None of the Respondent’s email communications contain any relevant comment on the merits of the case. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules, the Panel shall decide the Complaint in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable. In accordance with paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that each of the three following elements is satisfied: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark 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. Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy states that the Complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd. , WIPO Case No. D2007-1228 . However, concerning the uncontested information provided by the Complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in the Complaint as true. See section 4.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“ WIPO Overview 3.0 ”). It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.0 and, where appropriate, will decide consistent with the consensus views captured therein. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Panel finds that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in the mark IQOS by virtue of various trademark registrations, including trademark registrations covering protection in Turkey, where the Respondent appears to be located. The Panel further finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s registered IQOS trademark, as it fully incorporates the Complainant’s trademark. As stated at section 1.8 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 , where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms would generally not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The mere addition of the dictionary term “tamiri” (which is Turkish and means “repair of” in the English language) in combination with the name of Turkey’s capital “Ankara” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the Complainant’s IQOS trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Panel further finds that the Respondent has failed to demonstrate any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. While the burden of proof on this element remains with the complainant, previous UDRP panels have recognized that this would result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, in particular as the evidence in this regard is often primarily within the knowledge of the respondent. Therefore, the Panel agrees with prior UDRP panels that the Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case before the burden of production shifts to the Respondent to show that it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name in order to meet the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See, Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd. , WIPO Case No. D2003-0455 . The Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied this requirement, while the Respondent has failed to file any evidence or make any convincing argument to demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name according to the Policy, paragraphs 4(a)(ii) and 4(c). In its Complaint, the Complainant has provided uncontested prima facie evidence that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests to use the Complainant’s trademark IQOS in a confusingly similar way within the disputed domain name. There is also no indication in the current record that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name. In the absence of a substantive response, the Respondent has particularly failed to demonstrate any of the other non-exclusive circumstances evidencing rights or legitimate interests under the Policy, paragraph 4(c) or other evidence of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Panel believes that the Respondent can also not be assessed as a legitimate repair service for the Complainant’s products in light of Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc. , WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 (“ Oki Data ”) and thus is not entitled to use the disputed domain name accordingly . The criteria as set forth in Oki Data are apparently not fulfilled in the present case. The Panel particularly notes that the Respondent’s website which is linked to the disputed domain name does not adequately disclose the relationship, or rather the lack thereof, between the Respondent and the Complainant, thus creating the false impression that the Respondent might be an official and authorized repair service for the Complainant’s genuine products, particularly by prominently using the Complainant’s IQOS trademark as well as its figurative hummingbird trademark. In view of the Panel, this takes the Respondent out of the Oki Data safe harbour for purposes of the second element. In addition, the Panel notes that the nature of the disputed domain name carries a risk of implied affiliation or association, as stated in section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0 . As a conclusion, the Panel finds that the Complainant has also satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith In the Panel’s view, the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Panel is convinced that the Respondent must have had the Complainant’s trademark in mind when registering the disputed domain name. It rather appears that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name for the purpose of creating an association with the Complainant, in particular with its smoke-free products. After having reviewed the Complainant’s screenshots of the website linked to the disputed domain name (Annex 8 to the Complaint), the Panel is convinced that the Respondent has intentionally registered the disputed domain name in order to generate traffic to its own website. The Panel once again notes that the Respondent has not published any visible disclaimer on the website linked to the disputed domain name to explain that there is no existing relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant. Quite the opposite, the prominent use of the Complainant’s IQOS trademark as well as of the figurative hummingbird trademark in addition to the nature of the disputed domain name is, in view of the Panel, sufficient evidence that the Respondent intentionally tries to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its IQOS trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of its website. The Panel therefore concludes that the disputed domain name was registered and is used in bad faith and that the Complainant has also satisfied the third element of the Policy, namely, 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 <iqostamirankara.com> be transferred to the Complainant. Kaya Köklü Sole Panelist Date: December 8, 2021
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around iqostamirankara.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.