Zyn-ca.com, Zyn-gb.com

The timeline behind zyn-ca.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 Swedish Match North Europe AB, Philip Morris International, Inc. v. Adam Alfred, Alfred Adam, Ariane Halvorson, Ariane Halvorson Case No. D2025-5322 1. The Parties The Complainants are Swedish Match North Europe AB, Sweden, and Philip Morris International, Inc., United States of America (“United States”), represented by D.M. Kisch Inc., South Africa. The Respondents are Adam Alfred, Alfred Adam, Germany, and Ariane Halvorson, Ariane Halvorson, Germany. 2. The Domain Names and Registrars The disputed domain name <zyn-ca.com> is registered with CNOBIN Information Technology Limited, and the disputed domain name <zyn-gb.com> is registered with Mat Bao Corporation (the “Registrars”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on December 19, 2025. On December 19, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On December 23, 2025, and on December 31, 2025, the Registrars transmitted by emails to the Center their verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Domain Admin, Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on January 2, 2026 with the registrant and contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrar(s), 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 Complainants filed an amended Complaint on January 13, 2026. page 2 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 January 14, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 3, 2026. The Respondents did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on February 4, 2026. The Center appointed Kateryna Oliinyk as the sole panelist in this matter on February 6, 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 Complainants are Swedish Match North Europe AB (“Swedish Match”), a Swedish company established under the laws of Sweden and a subsidiary of Philip Morris International, Inc. Philip Morris International, Inc. is a company established under the laws of the Commonwealth of Virginia, United States. The latter acquired Swedish Match in May 2022 and both belong to the same group of companies. The Complainants will be hereinafter referred to collectively as the “Complainant”. Swedish Match was founded in 1992 and is primarily engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, and selling smoke-free tobacco products, such as snus and nicotine pouches, which are sold in several countries. Swedish Match’s brand portfolio contains the ZYN trademark used for nicotine pouches in the United States, where it was first launched in 2016. Currently, the nicotine product under the ZYN trademark is available in around 40 markets across the world. The Complainant itself or through its affiliated company owns trademark registrations across various jurisdictions, a few of which are detailed below: - International Trademark Registration No. 1421212 for ZYN, registered on April 18, 2018, for goods in International Class 34; - International Trademark Registration No. 1456681 for ZYN, registered on December 27, 2018, for goods in International Class 34. The disputed domain names were created on the following dates: <zyn-ca.com> was created on July 18, 2025, and <zyn-gb.com> was created on November 25, 2025. At the time the Complaint was filed, the disputed domain names resolved to commercial websites that were selling and offering the Complainant’s nicotine products under the ZYN trademark, as well as competing third-party products of different commercial origin. Both websites prominently displayed the Complainant’s ZYN trademark at the top of their homepage and featured images of the Complainant’s products, among other content. At the time of this Decision, the websites corresponding to the disputed domain names appear to be inaccessible, as the disputed domain names now resolve to a blocking or error notice. Specifically, attempts to access the website under the disputed domain name <zyn-ca.com> resolve to a website showing message stating “Sorry, you have been blocked. You are unable to access zyn-ca.com”, and <zyn-gb.com> resolves to the webpage stating that the website cannot be accessed. This indicates that the previous use of the disputed domain names has ceased or that access to the websites has been restricted. page 3 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. (1) Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant contends that it owns rights in the ZYN trademark. The Complainant further contends that the disputed domain names entirely incorporate the ZYN trademark, which is clearly recognizable within the disputed domain names, despite the additional generic elements “ca” and “gb”, which are not sufficient to avoid any confusion between the disputed domain name and the ZYN trademark of the Complainant. Addition of the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) shall be viewed as a mere registration requirement. (2) No Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant asserts that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Complainant claims that it has not licensed or authorized the Respondents to register or use the disputed domain names, nor are the Respondents affiliated to the Complainant in any form. There is no evidence demonstrating that the Respondents might be commonly known by the disputed domain names. There is no evidence of the Respondents’ use of the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, nor any evidence of a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names by the Respondents. Moreover, the disputed domain names and the associated websites suggest confusion regarding affiliation of the disputed domain names with the Complainant. The Complainant contends that the websites associated with the disputed domain names falsely present themselves as official online retailers of the Complainant’s nicotine products under the ZYN trademark in Canada and the United Kingdom, or, at the very least, as official and authorised licensees of the Complainant. This impression is created through the use of the Complainant’s ZYN trademark in the disputed domain names, combined with the non-distinctive and descriptive elements “gb” and “ca”, thereby suggesting that they have the Complainant’s permission or consent to use the mark. This illegitimate and false claim of rights in the Complainant’s official copyright protected material further supports the false impression, that the websites to which the disputed domain names resolved were endorsed by the Complainant, and this is not true. Such use of the disputed domain names cannot be considered a bona fide offering of goods and does not establish a legitimate interest on behalf of the Respondent. The Complainant argues that the Respondents do not satisfy the conditions of the Oki Data test (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903). (3) Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant contends that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. page 4 The Complainant contends that the Respondents could not have been unaware of the ZYN trademark when they registered the disputed domain names, which are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark which has gained a high degree of recognition among the public. Furthermore, the Respondents’ actual knowledge of the Complainant and its trademark is clearly demonstrated by the use of the Complainant’s ZYN trademark on the commercial websites under the disputed domain names. The Respondents were clearly well aware of the Complainant and its trademark and registered the disputed domain names with such trademark in mind, in order to capitalize on the reputation of the Complainant and its trademark to attract Internet users. B. Respondents The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Procedural Issue: Consolidation of Multiple Respondents The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally 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. 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. Paragraph 10(e) of the Rules states that a “[p]anel shall decide a request by a Party to consolidate multiple domain name disputes in accordance with the Policy and these Rules”. Paragraph 10(c) of the Rules provides, in relevant part, that “the [p]anel shall ensure that the administrative proceeding takes place with due expedition”. 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. There are two named Respondents (two underlying registrants disclosed by the Registrars) – one for each of the disputed domain names. The record indicates the disputed domain names are under common control. The following facts support this conclusion: - the disputed domain names were registered within a short period of one another, on July 18, 2025 and November 25, 2025; - the structure of the disputed domain names is similar in that it is the Complainant’s ZYN trademark, a dash and a geographical abbreviation; - when the disputed domain names were accessible, users were directed to websites that were highly similar to one another; - the Respondents use the same email address; - each of the websites associated with the disputed domain names contains the identical designation at the top of the websites. The Respondents have not presented any arguments as to why consolidation would be unfair or inequitable. page 5 As regards fairness and equity, the Panel sees no reason why consolidation of the disputes would be unfair or inequitable to any Party. Accordingly, the Panel decides to consolidate the disputes regarding the nominally different disputed domain name registrants (referred to below as “the Respondent”) in a single proceeding. 6.2. Substantive Matters Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs the Panel as to the principles the Panel is to use in determining the dispute: “[a] Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following: i. that the disputed domain names are identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; ii. that the Respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain names; and iii. that the disputed domain names have been registered and are being used in bad faith. Considering that the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions, in order to determine whether the Complainant has met its burden as stated in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Panel bases its decision on the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy and the Rules. Under paragraph 5(f) and paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, if a respondent does not submit a response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint, and where a party does not comply with any provision of the Rules, the Panel “shall draw such inferences therefrom as it considers appropriate”. 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 a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the ZYN trademark is reproduced within the disputed domain names. The Panel finds the ZYN trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms here, the generic geographic abbreviations “ca” and “gb” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain names and the mark 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. page 6 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 Respondents lack 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. The Panel notes that neither license nor authorization appears to have been granted to the Respondent by the Complainant to make any use of the Complainant’s ZYN trademark, or to apply for registration of the disputed domain names. The Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain names, which incorporate the Complainant’s ZYN trademark and the elements “ca” and “gb” referring to the geographic targeting of the websites, and its use of the mark in the websites’ design and product descriptions without disclosing its lack of relationship with the Complainant (offering both Complainant’s and third-party goods competing with the Complainant’s), demonstrates clear targeting of the Complainant, its trademark, and its business. Consequently, the Respondent’s conduct cannot be regarded as a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names. The Complainant demonstrated that the websites, to which the disputed domain names resolve, offer products that compete with those of the Complainant. The websites also display the imitation of the Complainant’s ZYN logo, which shows that the Respondent has attempted to pass off as the Complainant, since the display of the Complainant’s ZYN trademark and the overall website content mislead Internet users as to the affiliation, source or sponsorship of the services rendered by the Respondent, clearly seeking a commercial gain (see sections 2.5.1, 2.5.2., and 2.5.3 of the WIPO Overview 3.1). The Respondent’s behavior shows a clear intent to obtain unfair commercial gain, with a view to misleadingly diverting consumers or to tarnish the trademarks owned by the Complainant. The Panel finds that: - the Respondent is not an authorized distributor or reseller of the ZYN nicotine products; and - the websites to which the disputed domain names resolved do not meet the requirements set out by numerous panel decisions for a bona fide offering of goods. A reseller or distributor can be making a bona fide offering of goods or services and thus have a legitimate interest in the domain name at issue only if certain requirements are met, which is not the case here because the websites at the disputed domain names do not prominently and accurately display a disclaimer regarding the relationship between the Respondent and the Complainant, and selling the products originating from third parties (see Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903). page 7 The Panel also finds that the composition of the disputed domain names creates a risk of implied affiliation, effectively impersonating or suggesting sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. The inclusion of the ZYN trademark followed by the common abbreviation for Canada and United Kingdom implies that the disputed domain names are owned by the Complainant or by a subsidiary or authorized distributor for those countries. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. 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. 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. The Panel notes that the Complainant has submitted evidence of its rights in the ZYN trademark through multiple registrations. The Panel further notes that the Complainant is well known as one of the worldwide leaders in retail of snus and nicotine pouches, smoke-free tobacco products or nicotine products, and that the registrations and use of the ZYN trademarks precedes creation of the disputed domain names, which disputed domain names used to resolve to commercial websites offering products of the Complainant and products originating from third parties. Under these circumstances, and considering both the composition of the disputed domain names and the contents of the Respondent’s websites, the Panel finds that the Respondent targeted the Complainant and its well-known trademark with opportunistic bad faith in the registration and use of the disputed domain names. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s decision to include the ZYN trademark in the disputed domain names alongside “ca” and “gb”, being the common abbreviation for Canada and United Kingdom, indicates a deliberate intention to create a misleading association to attract Internet users for commercial gain, constituting bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. See, e.g., Inter Ikea Systems B.V. v. Daniel Woodson, WIPO Case No. D2011-1933; and Swedish Match North Europe, Philip Morris International, Inc. v. Yong Lan, WIPO Case No. D2025-2641. The fact that the Respondent’s websites are, at the time of this decision, apparently blocked or inactive does not alter this finding. Upon review of the record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain names, and their prior use in connection with websites that falsely suggested an affiliation in an attempt to impersonate the Complainant or one of its subsidiaries/distributors. The Panel finds that, under these circumstances, the current passive holding of the disputed domain names does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. See WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Furthermore, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate or unlawful activities, such as claimed passing off, constitutes bad faith. Upon review of the record, the Panel finds that the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain names constitute bad faith under the Policy. The prominent display of the Complainant’s trademark on the Respondent’s websites, combined with the composition of the disputed domain names, the unauthorized use of copyrighted official images of the Complainant’s products, and the absence of a disclosure on the lack of relationship with the Complainant, and all other relevant page 8 circumstances, indicate an effort to impersonate the Complainant or one of its subsidiaries or authorized distributors. Such actions represent an illegitimate or illegal conduct that constitutes bad faith under the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. Therefore, the Panel concludes 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 names <zyn-ca.com> and <zyn-gb.com> be transferred to the Complainants. /Kateryna Oliinyk/ Kateryna Oliinyk Sole Panelist Date: February 26, 2026

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