Iqos-smoke-au.com, Terea-shop.com

The timeline behind iqos-smoke-au.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 AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Philip Morris Products S.A. v. TF hk Case No. D2025-5108 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A., Switzerland, represented by D.M. Kisch Inc., South Af rica. The Respondent is TF hk, China. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <iqos-s moke-au.com>, and <terea-shop.com> are registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was f iled with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 9, 2025. On December 9, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the disputed domain names. On December 11, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact inf ormation f or the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on December 12, 2025, providing the registrant and contact inf ormation disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on December 18, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 23, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was January 12, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on January 20, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Christos A. Theodoulou as the sole panelist in this matter on February 2, 2026. The Panel f inds 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 af f iliated 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’s brand portf olio contains brands like MARLBORO (outside of United States and Canada), an international selling cigarette brand since 1972. The Complainant, according to its uncontested allegations, has innovated its brand portfolio. It transf ormed its business from combustible cigarettes to Reduced Risk Products (or “RRP”), which according to the Complainant, may present less risk of harm to smokers who switch to these products versus continued smoking. Philip Morris International has developed a number of RRP products, among which is a tobacco heating system called IQOS. IQOS, according to the Complainant, 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 f lavorf ul nicotine-containing aerosol (collectively ref erred to as the “IQOS” System”). There are 6 versions of the IQOS heating device currently available: the IQOS 2.4/IQOS 2.4+pocket charger and holder, IQOS 3 pocket charger and holder, IQOS 3 Multi device, IQOS 3DUO/DUOS, and IQOS ILUMA. The IQOS System was f irst launched by PMI in Nagoya, Japan in 2014 and has obtained, according to the Complainant extraordinary 20% share of the market in Japan. Today the IQOS System is available in key cities in around 84 markets across the world. The Complainant is the owner of many trademark registrations all over the world, among which: - Chinese Registration IQOS (device) No. 49264074 registered May 7, 2021; - Chinese Registration IQOS (device) No. 37632252 registered December 21, 2019; - Chinese Registration IQOS (device) No. 49789993 registered on June 21, 2021; - Chinese Registration IQOS (word) No. 16314286 registered on May 14, 2016; - Chinese Registration IQOS ILUMA (word) No. 43074546 registered November 7, 2020; - Australian Registration IQOS (word) No. 1860638 registered on July 22, 2021; - International Registration (device) no. 1544329 registered on June 23, 2020; - International Registration ILUMA (word) No. 1764390 registered on June 4, 2024; - International Registration TEREA (word) No. 1765887 registered on October 19, 2023. The disputed domain name <iqos-s moke-au.com> was created on April 10, 2025 and the disputed domain name <terea-shop.com> was created on February 26, 2025, that is after the registration of the Complainant’s trademarks. The disputed domain names resolve to two active websites in Chinese and English, which advertise and sell products of the Respondent and of third parties. page 3 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the disputed domain names. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to its trademarks IQOS and TEREA in which the Complainant has rights, that the Respondent lacks any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names, and that the Respondent registered the disputed domain names af ter the Complainant registered its trademarks and used the disputed domain names in bad f aith. Moreover, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names, that the Respondent has no relation to the Complainant in any way. The Complainant f urther alleges that the Respondent was neither licensed nor authorized to make any use of the Complainant’s trademarks IQOS and TEREA. The Complainant asserts that, the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad f aith. The Complainant’s trademarks were registered and used by the Complainant long bef ore the Respondent registered the disputed domain names. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions 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 names. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of IQOS and TEREA trademarks f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the IQOS mark and TEREA mark is reproduced within the disputed domain names respectively. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are conf using similar to the Complainant’s trademarks f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The addition of other terms (“shop” and “smoke”) does not prevent a f inding of confusing similarity under the f irst element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel f inds the f irst 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 page 4 of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is of ten 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 f orward 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 f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie 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 f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. In particular and based on the available record, the Panel f inds that the Respondent has not used the disputed domain names for a bona fide offering of goods or services; that the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names; and that the Respondent has not made a legitimate noncommercial o r f air use of the disputed domain names. Moreover, it is to be noted that the Respondent did not present evidence of any lic ense or permiss ion by the Complainant, with whom there seems to exist no relationship whatsoever. In addition, the Panel notes that the composition of the disputed domain names, incorporating the Complainant’s distinctive trademarks in their entirety with the addition of “shop” and “smoke” carries a risk of implie d affi lia tion. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. As a conclusion on this point, the Panel finds that the second element of the Policy has been establis hed. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or 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 f aith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent’s disputed domain names were created on April 10, 2025 <iqos-smoke-au.com>, and February 26, 2025 <terea-shop.com>, whereas the Complainant’s trademarks had already been registered. From the evidence at hand, the Panel finds that the Respondent, when registering the disputed domain names, must have been aware of the Complainant’s trademarks. Theref ore, the Respondent’s awareness of the Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of registration suggests bad f aith (See, BellSouth Intellectual Property Corporation v. Serena, Axel, WIPO Case No . D2006-0007, and Red Bull GmbH v. Credit du Léman SA, Jean-Denis Deletraz, WIPO Case No . D2011-2209). Further, the disputed domain names incorporate t he Complainant’s IQOS and TEREA t rademark and this, acco rding t o p revious UDRP cases, evidences bad f ait h reg istration and use (See Charles Jourdan Holding A G v. AAIM, WIPO Case No . D2000-0403, WIPO Overview 3.0, sect io n 3.1. 4. ). Further, the Respondent is using the Complainant’s trademark IQOSalso f or of f ering f or sale third party products of other commercial origin. This constitutes also evidence of bad f aith. As a conseq uence of the above, the Panel f inds t hat the Comp lainant has established t he third element of the Po licy. page 5 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the disputed domain names <iqos-smok e-au.com> and <t erea-shop.com> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Christos A. Theodoulou/ Christos A. Theodoulou Sole Panelist Date: February 5, 2026

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