Terea-tw.com

The timeline behind terea-tw.com

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

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. Tingwei Chan Case No. D2025-4670 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A., Switzerland, represented by D.M. Kisch Inc., South Africa. The Respondent is Tingwei Chan, Taiwan Province of China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <terea-tw.com> is registered with Net-Chinese Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 11, 2025. On November 11, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 12, 2025, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 13, 2025, 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 in English on November 18, 2025. On November 13, 2025, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. On November 18, 2025, the Complainant requested English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent 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”). page 2 In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent in Chinese and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on November 24, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 14, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 17, 2025. The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on December 24, 2025. 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 a group of companies affiliated to Philip Morris International Inc. (jointly referred to as “PMI”). PMI is a leading international tobacco and smoke-free products company, with products sold in approximately 180 countries. PMI sells a number of reduced risk products (“RRPs”). One of these RRPs developed and sold by PMI is a tobacco heating system called IQOS. IQOS is a precisely controlled heating device into which specially designed tobacco sticks under the brand names HEETS, HEATSTICKS, DELIA, LEVIA, or TEREA are inserted and heated to generate a flavourful nicotine-containing aerosol (collectively referred to as the “IQOS System”). The Complainant is the registered proprietor of: (a) Taiwan Province of China Registration TEREA (word) No. 02079403 registered on August 16, 2020. (b) International Registration TEREA (word) No. 1765887 registered on October 19, 2023 designating Afghanistan, Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba, Botswana, Cabo Verde, Jamaica, Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Mauritius, Malawi, Syrian Arab Republic, Turkmenistan, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Kenya, Mongolia, Mozambique, Eswatini, and Tajikistan. (c) International Registration TEREA FOR IQOS ILUMA and Device No. 1629687 registered on August 26, 2021 designating Australia, Bahrain, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, Curaçao, Netherlands (Kingdom of the), United Kingdom, Georgia, Indonesia, Israel, Iceland, Mexico, Malaysia, Norway, New Zealand, Philippines, Trinidad and Tobago, Uzbekistan, Albania, Armenia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Belarus, Egypt, Kyrgyzstan, Kazakhstan, Morocco, Monaco, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, North Macedonia, Serbia, Ukraine, and Viet Nam. The Complainant is also the registered proprietor of various marks for IQOS around the world. The Respondent is an individual based in Taiwan Province of China. The disputed domain name was registered May 19, 2025. The disputed domain name <terea-tw.com> is linked to an online shop that states it is selling the Complainant’s IQOS System, as well as its TEREA tobacco products. The Complainant’s IQOS System and TEREA tobacco products are not currently sold in Taiwan Province of China. The website under the disputed domain name claims to be the official website of IQOS and TEREA products in Taiwan Province of China. 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 name. page 2 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1 Preliminary Issue: Language of the Proceeding The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. 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 was filed in English. The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English for several reasons, including: (a) Translating the Complaint into Chinese would incur extra expenses and costs. (b) There is some use of English on the website under the disputed domain name. (c) English is a common language in global business. The Respondent did not make any specific submissions with respect to the language of the proceeding. 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 (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.5.1). The Panel determines under paragraph 11(a) of the Rules that the language of the proceeding shall be English. 6.2 Substantive Issues 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 3.0, section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, “-tw” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such a term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, 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. page 2 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 3.0, 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 name. 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 name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The website under the disputed domain name purports to offer the Complainant’s products for sale, in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, the panel held that to be bona fide within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(i) of the policy, the offering should meet the following requirements: - The Respondent must actually be offering the goods or services at issue; - The Respondent must use the site to sell only the trademarked goods; otherwise, it could be using the trademark to bait Internet users and then switch them to other goods; - The site must accurately and prominently disclose the registrant’s relationship with the trademark owner; it may not, for example, falsely suggest that it is the trademark owner, or that the website is the official site; and - The Respondent must not try to corner the market in all domain names, thus depriving the trademark owner of reflecting its own mark in a domain name. In this case the Respondent does not meet, at least, the third requirement set out above. The website under the disputed domain name does not accurately and prominently disclose its lack of relationship with the Complainant. The Respondent claims on its website to be the official IQOS website for Taiwan Province of China, which it is not. 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 3.0, section 3.2.1. The Respondent falsely claims on its website to be the official IQOS website for Taiwan Province of China. It clearly shows that the Respondent is seeking to attract Internet users to the disputed domain name for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant. page 2 The Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <terea-tw.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Douglas Clark/ Douglas Clark Sole Panelist Date: January 13, 2026

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