Iqos0109.com

The timeline behind iqos0109.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. tame boboza Case No. D2026-0371 1. The Parties Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A., Switzerland, represented by D.M. Kisch Inc., South Africa. Respondent is tame boboza, Japan. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <iqos0109.com> is registered with NameSilo, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 29, 2026. On January 29, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 29, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from named Respondent (Privacy User #f93d3b81, PrivacyGuardian.org) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to Complainant on February 2, 2026, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. Complainant filed an amended Complaint on February 9, 2026. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 17, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 9, 2026. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 10, 2026. The Center appointed Gabriel F. Leonardos as the sole panelist in this matter on March 16, 2026. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panel has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration page 2 of Impartiality and Independence, as required by the Center to ensure compliance with the Rules, paragraph 7. 4. Factual Background Complaint is part of the group of companies affiliated to Philip Morris International Inc., a leading international tobacco and smoke-free products company, with products sold in approximately 180 countries. One of Complainant’s products is its IQOS System, a precisely controlled heating device into which specially designed tobacco sticks are inserted and heated to generate a flavorful nicotine-containing aerosol. This product was launched in Nagoya, Japan, in 2014, and today is available in 84 markets. As shown in the examples below, Complainant owns several trademark registrations for IQOS: Registration Number Trademark Jurisdiction International Class Registration Date 1329691 International Registration (designated jurisdictions include inter alia Japan and the EU) 9, 11, and 34 August 10, 2016 1338099 International Registration (designated jurisdictions include inter alia Japan and the EU) 35 November 22, 2016 1218246 IQOS International Registration (designated jurisdictions include inter alia India and the EU) 9, 11, and 34 July 10, 2014 The disputed domain name was registered on June 12, 2025, and resolves to an online shop that allegedly sells Complainant’s IQOS System and competing third-party products. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, Complainant contends that the disputed domain name reproduces the IQOS trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of the non-distinctive and arbitrary combination of numbers, which would be insufficient to avoid the finding of confusing similarity. Therefore, according to Complainant, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s trademarks, fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. Complainant affirms that it has not licensed or consented to the registration or use the disputed domain name and that there are no circumstances that justify Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name. Complainant states that Respondent is not authorized to be a distributor or a reseller of Complainant’s products. Therefore, argues that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, fulfilling paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. Complainant urges that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. According to Complainant, considering the use of the domain name, Respondent must have been aware of Complainant’s reputation and trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain name page 3 Complainant states that the disputed domain name was used to offer Complainant’s IQOS System and third- party products. In this sense, it affirms the disputed domain name is being used to take advantage of the IQOS trademark to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion. The use of a privacy protection service to hide its identity would further demonstrate Respondent’s bad faith. Thus, according to Complainant, the requirements for the identification of a bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name have been fulfilled, pursuant to paragraphs 4(a)(iii) and 4(b) of the Policy. Accordingly, Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings To succeed in a UDRP complaint, Complainant must demonstrate that all the elements listed in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy have been satisfied, as following: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (ii) 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. The burden of proving these elements is upon Complainant. Respondent had 20 days to submit a response in accordance with paragraph 5(a) of the Rules and failed to do so. Paragraph 5(f) of the Rules establishes that if a respondent does not respond to the Complaint, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel’s decision shall be based upon the Complaint. 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 Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions, (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. Based on the available record, the Panel finds 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 IQOS trademark 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 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of the numbers “0109” may bear assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds that such measure does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. Previous panels have already recognized that the inconsequential addition of numbers does not prevent confusing similarity, such as in Block, Inc. v. Peter Stavisky, Barrington Media Group WIPO Case No. D2022-1341 and Goyard St-Honore v. Fundacion Private Whois, Domain Administrator WIPO Case No. D2013-0443. page 4 Therefore, based on the available record, 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 Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on 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 Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to Respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on Complainant). If Respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, Complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.1. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds Complainant has established a prima facie case that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. Respondent has not rebutted 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. Based on the available record, Respondent is not entitled to any trademark, trade name, or any other right associated with the disputed domain name. Additionally, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name and has not been authorized by Complainant to use the IQOS trademark, and there is no commercial relationship between the Parties. In light of these circumstances, the Panel finds that no rights or legitimate interests can be found on behalf of Respondent. Accordingly, 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. In the present case, the Panel notes that Respondent has registered the disputed domain name that is confusingly similar to Complainant’s IQOS trademark. Also, based on the available record, it was established that Respondent has no affiliation with Complainant and its trademarks, nor has it sought authorization or a license to utilize the referred trademarks. Also, Respondent does not own any trademarks containing the distinctive term “IQOS” or showed any rights over the trademarks or any related terms. Respondent evidently knew or should have known of the existence of Complainant’s prior trademark rights and domain names, which were matters of public record, before registering the disputed domain name. The registration of the disputed domain name was carried out by Respondent, who had the responsibility to verify the existence of the referred trademark. Considering Complainant’s activities and the form the disputed domain name was registered and used, it may be inferred that the registration and use of the disputed domain name was done with the intention to take advantage of the IQOS trademark and attract Internet users for commercial gain. page 5 Also, illegitimacy is further shown by the fact that the Complainant does not currently offer its IQOS System for sale in the territory of Taiwan Province of China, and the on-line shop provided under the disputed domain name can create the false impression that Complainant has officially introduced the product in the region and is affiliated or authorized by Complainant. As stated in the Complaint and shown in its annexes, the disputed domain name directs to website offering third party products of other commercial origin, thus promoting competing products. Previous panels have already recognized bad faith in this practice, such as in Galderma S.A. v. HSP Marketing / Domains by Proxy, Inc. WIPO Case No. D2011-0265 and VKR Holding A/S v. Perfect Privacy, LLC / Daniel, S. Isaac, Isaac Daniel Group, Inc. WIPO Case No. D2016-2484. Therefore, based on the available record, the Panel finds that 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 <iqos0109.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Gabriel F. Leonardos/ Gabriel F. Leonardos Sole Panelist Date: April 2, 2026

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