Iqostereailuma.com + 8 more domains

The timeline behind iqostereailuma.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Philip Morris Products S.A. v. ziya sonmez, Can Hayri, Terea Turkey Case No. D2025-4549 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A., Switzerland, represented by D.M. Kisch Inc., South Africa. The Respondents are ziya sonmez, Türkiye, Can Hayri, Türkiye, and Terea Turkey, Türkiye. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain names <iqostereailuma.com>, <tereaturkey.com>, <tereaturkey.online>, <tereaturkey.shop>, <tereaturkey.store>, <tereaturkey1.com>, <turkeyterea.com>, and <turkeyterrea.com> are registered with Automattic Inc. The disputed domain name <tereahub.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrars”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 4, 2025. On November 4, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On November 5, 2025, the Registrars transmitted by email to the Center their verification responses disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 7, 2025 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrars, requesting the Complainant to either file separate complaint(s) for the disputed domain names associated with different underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on November 12, 2025. On November 7, 2025, the Center informed the parties in Turkish and English, that the language of the registration agreement for the disputed domain names <iqostereailuma.com>, <tereaturkey.com>, <tereaturkey.online>, <tereaturkey.shop>, <tereaturkey.store>, <tereaturkey1.com>, <turkeyterea.com>, and <turkeyterrea.com> is Turkish. On November 12, 2025, the Complainant requested English to be the page 2 language of the proceeding. The Respondents did not submit any comment on the Complainant’s submission. 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 Respondents of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 11, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was January 26, 2026. One of the Respondents sent an email communication to the Center on December 11, 2025. The Center appointed Kaya Köklü as the sole panelist in this matter on February 11, 2026. 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 a large number of word and figurative IQOS, TEREA and ILUMA trademark registrations around the globe. According to the Complaint, the Complainant is, among many others, the registered owner of the International Trademark Registration No. 1218246, registered on July 10, 2014, for IQOS, designating among others Türkiye, and covering protection for goods in classes 9, 11, and 34; the Turkish Trademark Registration No. 2019 128867, registered on September 17, 2020, for TEREA, covering protection, inter alia, for electronic cigarettes as protected in class 34; and the Turkish Trademark Registration No. 2019 128833, registered on September 22, 2020, for ILUMA, covering protection for smoke- free related products in classes 9 and 34. The three Respondents are reportedly located in Türkiye. The disputed domain names were registered as follows: <tereaturkey.com> on October 21, 2024 <tereahub.com> on November 5, 2024 <iqostereailuma.com> on December 12, 2024 <tereaturkey.online> on December 20, 2024 <tereaturkey.shop> on December 20, 2024 <tereaturkey.store> on December 20, 2024 <turkeyterea.com> on December 20, 2024 <tereaturkey1.com> on August 22, 2025 <turkeyterrea.com> on October 27, 2025 Screenshots, as provided by the Complainant, show that the disputed domain name <turkeyterrea.com> resolves to a website, which is used for purportedly offering various kinds of smoke-free products of the Complainant for sale. On the associated website, the IQOS, TEREA, ILUMA and also other trademarks (including logos) as well as official product images of the Complainant are prominently used without a visible disclaimer describing the (lack of) relationship between the Parties. The disputed domain names <iqostereailuma.com>, <tereaturkey.com>, <tereaturkey.online>, <tereaturkey.shop>, <tereaturkey.store>, <tereaturkey1.com>, and <turkeyterea.com> redirect users to the website hosted at <turkeyterrea.com>. page 3 The disputed domain name <tereahub.com> resolves to another similar website, also purportedly offering for sale smoke-free products of the Complainant, while using the IQOS, TEREA, ILUMA and also other trademarks and official product images of the Complainant. As evidenced by screenshots provided by the Complainant, the contact details on the associated website reveal the identical phone number as used on the website hosted at <turkeyterrea.com>. Also, on the website associated to <turkeyterrea.com>, the website at <tereahub.com> is advertised in the footer part. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain names. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. The Center, however, received an informal email communication in Turkish from the Second Respondent stating that “[t]he current domain names are not in my use. You can close them all. I am not using them.” 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Consolidation: Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally three different domain name registrants. The Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other, or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules. The registrants of the disputed domain names did not comment on the Complainant’s request. Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder. In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 4.11.2. In light of the criteria set out above, the Panel finds that the Complainant has provided unrebutted indications that the disputed domain names are likely under common control for the following reasons: The disputed domain names were all registered in rather close proximity to one another. The disputed domain names further are all similar in their composition. It is further noted that the disputed domain names <iqostereailuma.com>, <tereaturkey.com>, <tereaturkey.online>, <tereaturkey.shop>, <tereaturkey.store>, <tereaturkey1.com>, and <turkeyterea.com> redirect users to the website hosted at <turkeyterrea.com>. On that website, the disputed domain name <tereahub.com> is advertised in the footer. Furthermore, the contact details on the websites associated with <tereahub.com> and <turkeyterrea.com> include the identical telephone number. The Panel concludes that the Respondents are more likely than not somehow connected. Hence, the Panel accepts that the disputed domain names are under common control. page 4 As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why a consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any of the involved Parties. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different registrants of the disputed domain names (referred to below as “the Respondent”, whenever appropriate) in a single proceeding. 6.2. Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name <tereahub.com> is English, while the language of the Registration Agreement for all the remaining disputed domain names is Turkish. Pursuant to the Rules, paragraph 11(a), in the absence of an agreement between the parties, or unless specified otherwise in the registration agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the registration agreement. The Complaint and amended Complaint were filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including that the Complainant has no knowledge of Turkish and that filing a translation of the Complaint would be time and costs intensive. The Respondent did not make any specific submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding, even though communicated by the Center in Turkish and English. In exercising its discretion to use a language other than that of the registration agreement, the Panel has to exercise such discretion judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both Parties, taking into account all relevant circumstances of the case, including matters such as the Parties’ ability to understand and use the proposed language, time and costs. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.5.1. Having considered all the matters above, particularly bearing in mind that one of the Registration Agreements is in English and the Respondent has not objected the Complainant’s request concerning the language of the proceeding, the Panel finds that the Respondent would not be disadvantaged if the language of the proceeding is English, and that using the English language in this proceeding would be fair and efficient. Therefore, the Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.3. Substantive Issues 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. As per paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the complainant bears the burden of proving that all these requirements are fulfilled, even if a respondent has not substantively replied to the complainant’s contentions. Stanworth Development Limited v. E Net Marketing Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2007-1228. page 5 Concerning the uncontested evidence provided by a complainant, the Panel may, where relevant, accept the provided reasonable factual allegations in a complaint as accurate. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 4.3. It is further noted that the Panel has taken note of the WIPO Overview 3.1 and, where appropriate, will decide consistently with the consensus views captured therein. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the IQOS, TEREA, and ILUMA trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Panel finds the marks are recognizable within the disputed domain names. The disputed domain names <iqostereailuma.com>, <tereahub.com>, <tereaturkey.com>, <tereaturkey.online>, <tereaturkey.shop>, <tereaturkey.store>, <tereaturkey1.com>, and <turkeyterea.com> all comprise at least one of the IQOS, TEREA, and ILUMA trademarks. The disputed domain name <turkeyterrea.com> incorporates an apparent misspelling of the Complainant’s TEREA trademark by simply including a second “r”. The Panel finds this is indicative of typosquatting, as it makes the Complainant’s TEREA trademark still recognizable within this dispute domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are all confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7 and 1.9. Although the addition of other terms, here “turkey”, “hub”, or the number “1”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds such additions do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the Complainant’s marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. page 6 In this regard, the Panel particularly believes that the Respondent cannot be assessed as a legitimate dealer 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 names accordingly. The criteria as set forth in Oki Data are not fulfilled in the present case. The Panel particularly notes that the websites which are directly or indirectly linked to the disputed domain names do not accurately and prominently 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/or authorized reseller/distributor for the Complainant’s products in Türkiye. This assessment is further supported by the nature of the disputed domain names, which comprise at least one of the Complainant’s IQOS, ILUMA, and/or TEREA trademarks (or an apparent misspelling of the latter one). In view of the Panel, this specific composition of the disputed domain names carries a risk of implied affiliation or confusion, as stated in section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.1. In view of the Panel, all this takes the Respondent out of the Oki Data safe harbour for purposes of the second element. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its IQOS, TEREA, and ILUMA trademarks in mind when registering the disputed domain names. It is obvious to the Panel that the Respondent has deliberately chosen the disputed domain names, which comprise at least one of the Complainant’s trademarks in their entirety (except one apparent misspelling in <turkeyterrea.com>), to target and mislead Internet users searching for the Complainant and its products. With respect to the use of the disputed domain names in bad faith, the Panel finds that the Respondent uses the disputed domain names in order to generate traffic to its own websites by deliberately misleading third parties in a false belief that the associated websites are either operated or at least authorized by the Complainant. The prominent use of the Complainant’s IQOS, TEREA, and ILUMA marks on the websites at the disputed domain names, including further trademarks, logos, and official product pictures of the Complainant, and the nature of the disputed domain names are, in view of the Panel, sufficient evidence that the Respondent intentionally tries to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant and its trademarks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation or endorsement of the associated websites. In addition, the Panel notes the failure of the Respondent to submit a response to the Complainant’s contentions, which further supports the Panel’s finding of bad faith. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 7 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 <iqostereailuma.com>, <tereahub.com>, <tereaturkey.com>, <tereaturkey.online>, <tereaturkey.shop>, <tereaturkey.store>, <tereaturkey1.com>, <turkeyterea.com>, and <turkeyterrea.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Kaya Köklü/ Kaya Köklü Sole Panelist Date: February 25, 2026

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.