Iqos-iluma.org

The timeline behind iqos-iluma.org

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. Dmitri Jon Case No. D2026-0349 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A., Switzerland, represented by D.M. Kisch Inc., South Africa. The Respondent is Dmitri Jon, Cyprus. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <iqos-iluma.org> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 28, 2026. On January 28, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On the same day, 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 (The RDAP server redacted the value, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 29, 2026, 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 February 4, 2026. Although the deadline to file the amended Complaint was set by the Center for February 3, 2026, as per paragraph 10 of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), the Panel accepts the late filing of the amended Complaint in view of (i) the minimal delay, (ii) the fact that the amendment does not change the substance of the case, and (iii) the fact that this late filing causes no prejudice to any of the Parties. 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, 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 amended Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 5, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 25, 2026. The page 2 Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 2, 2026. The Center appointed Monica Novac as the sole panelist in this matter on March 9, 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 Philip Morris Products S.A., a Swiss company which is part of the 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 developed several tobacco products, including a tobacco heating system named IQOS. There are 6 versions of the IQOS heating device currently available, including IQOS ILUMA and IQOS ILUMA i. The IQOS range of products was first launched by PMI in Japan in 2014, while as of today, this is available in key cities around 84 markets worldwide. The Complainant holds several trademark registrations for IQOS and ILUMA (alone or in combination with each other) in various jurisdictions, including the following: - International Trademark Registration No. 1218246 IQOS (word), registered on July 10, 2014, in classes 9, 11 and 34, designating numerous jurisdictions, including the European Union; - International Trademark Registration No. 1338099 , registered on November 22, 2016, in class 35, designating numerous jurisdictions, including the European Union; and - International Trademark Registration No. 1764390 ILUMA (word), registered on October 12, 2023, in class 34, designating numerous jurisdictions. The Respondent is Dmitri Jon, reportedly located in Cyprus. The Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name on September 9, 2025. On the date of filing the Complaint, as well as on the date of rendering this Decision, when accessed by the Panel, the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a commercial website in Russian language, which offers for sale IQOS (including IQOS ILUMA) branded products and accessories thereof, by also unlawfully reproducing the Complainant’s IQOS logo and official product images, and displaying a copyright notice claiming copyright ownership of the materials available on the website. Furthermore, the website at the Disputed Domain Name presents itself as “ an IQOS online store in Belarus, specializing in the sale of original devices, HEETS and TREA sticks, as well as accessories. We work directly with official suppliers, provide delivery throughout the country in 1-3 days and provide a quality guarantee”. The website at the Disputed Domain Name targets the Belarus market, although as per the Complainant’s contentions, their IQOS products are currently not sold in Belarus. 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that: - the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IQOS and ILUMA trademarks; - the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name; and - the Disputed Domain Name has been registered and it is being used in bad faith. page 3 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 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 trademarks and the Disputed Domain Name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Disputed Domain Name consists of the terms IQOS and ILUMA which are separated by a hyphen, as well as the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.org”. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the IQOS and ILUMA trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of both marks is reproduced within the Disputed Domain Name. Accordingly, the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to the IQOS and ILUMA marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. According to the WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1, the gTLD “.org” in the Disputed Domain Name is viewed as a standard registration requirement and as such is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. 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 that 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 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. It is accepted by the Panel that the Complainant has not permitted nor licensed the Respondent to use its trademarks or to register the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is not an authorized distributor or reseller of the Complainant’s IQOS range of products. There is also no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. page 4 In view of the composition of the Disputed Domain Name, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with the ultimate intent to mislead Internet users and to erroneously make them believe that the Disputed Domain Name is operated by or associated with the Complainant. The Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website that offers for sale IQOS (including IQOS ILUMA) branded products and accessories thereof, by also unlawfully reproducing the Complainant’s IQOS logo and official product images, and displaying a copyright notice claiming copyright ownership of the materials available on the website. In this sense, it has been established that “respondent’s use of a domain name will not be considered “fair” if it falsely suggests affiliation with the trademark owner; the correlation between a domain name and the complainant’s mark is often the central starting point to this inquiry”. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5. The Panel considers that the composition of the Disputed Domain Name, coupled with its use as explained above, signals the Respondent’s intention of taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s marks. The Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent does not use the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, respectively nor does it make a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name as per the Policy. The website at the Disputed Domain Name provides that “we are an IQOS online store in Belarus, specializing in the sale of original devices, HEETS and TREA sticks, as well as accessories. We work directly with official suppliers, provide delivery throughout the country in 1-3 days and provide a quality guarantee”. The Respondent offers for sale what appears to be Complainant’s genuine products, however without prominently disclosing the relationship (or lack thereof) between the Complainant and the Respondent. Even if the Respondent was to be working “directly with official suppliers”, that would not be sufficient to give rise to rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name, particularly when its composition and use create a risk of implied affiliation. Moreover, the illegitimacy of the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is further shown by the fact that the Complainant does not currently offer for sale the IQOS range of products in Belarus, thus the online shop found at the Disputed Domain Name creates the false impression that the Complainant has officially introduced these products into the Belarus market. Also, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, claimed passing off or other types of fraud), can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. The Respondent did not respond to the Complainant’s contentions, thus the Respondent did not present any evidence for supporting any rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. 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 Complainant registered and used its IQOS and ILUMA trademarks before the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name. In view of the worldwide presence of the Complainant, the composition of the Disputed Domain Name, as well as its use, it is unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainant’s trademarks and business when registering the Disputed Domain Name. page 5 The Panel believes that the Respondent targeted the Complainant when registering the Disputed Domain Name. Moreover, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with the intent to mislead the Internet users into believing that the website at the Disputed Domain Name is affiliated with or endorsed by the Complainant, which is a clear proof of bad faith. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy provides that the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt “to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to [the respondent’s] web site or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of [the respondent’s] web site or location or of a product or service on [the respondent’s] web site or location” is evidence of registration and use in bad faith. In view of all the above, the Panel is of the opinion that the Respondent’s intention was to attract Internet users to the webpage at the Disputed Domain Name, by creating a likelihood of confusion and making them believe that said webpage is held, controlled or related to the Complainant, for the Respondent’s commercial gain. This is further supported by the Respondent’s use on its webpage of the Complainant’s IQOS logo and official product images, as well as of a copyright notice claiming copyright ownership of the materials available on the website. The illegitimacy of the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is further shown by the fact that the Complainant does not currently offer for sale the IQOS range of products in Belarus, and the online shop found at the Disputed Domain Name creates the false impression that the Complainant has officially introduced these products into the Belarus market. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, claimed passing off or other types of fraud), constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. The Panel also notes the Respondent’s failure to submit a response in the present proceeding, which may be considered as a further indication supporting the Panel’s finding of the Respondent’s bad faith. Having reviewed the record, 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 <iqos-iluma.org> be transferred to the Complainant. /Monica Novac/ Monica Novac Sole Panelist Date: March 15, 2026

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