Iqostereakibris.com

The timeline behind iqostereakibris.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. Mehmet Emin Avcıl Case No. D2026-2404 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A., Switzerland, represented by Akran Intellectual Property, Italy. The Respondent is Mehmet Emin Avcıl, Türkiye. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <iqostereakibris.com> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 3, 2026. On June 4, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 4, 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 the named Respondent (Privacy Protection Provided by Hostinger, the RDAP server redacted the value) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 9, 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 June 11, 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 the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceeding commenced on June 12, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 2, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 3, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Sebastian M.W. Hughes as the sole panelist in this matter on July 7, 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 A. Complainant The Complainant is a company incorporated in Switzerland and is part of the group of companies affiliated with Philip Morris International Inc. (“PMI”). The Complainant is the owner of several registrations in jurisdictions worldwide for the following trade marks (collectively, the “Trade Marks”): (i) The Trade Mark IQOS, including International registration No. 1218246 (designation including Türkiye), with a registration date of July 10, 2014; (ii) The Trade Mark HEETS, including International registration No. 1326410 (designation including Türkiye), with a registration date of July 19, 2016; and (iii) The Trade Mark TEREA, including International registration No. 1765887, with a registration date of October 19, 2023; and Turkish registration No. 2020 108652, with a registration date of June 16, 2020. PMI has used the Trade Marks in respect of its IQOS tobacco heating device since its launch in Japan in 2014, and to date in 84 countries. B. Respondent The Respondent is apparently a resident of Türkiye. C. The Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name was registered on October 30, 2025. D. Use of the Disputed Domain Name The disputed domain name is resolved to a Turkish language website (“the Website”) apparently promoting and offering for sale the Complainant’s IQOS, HEETS and TEREA products. 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 Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith, in order to pass off the Website as a website of, or authorised or approved by, the Complainant; and in order to sell PMI’s IQOS, HEETS and TEREA products to customers in Türkiye, a country in which the Complainant does not currently sell its IQOS, HEETS and TEREA products. 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 trade mark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of trade marks or service marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the Complainant’s IQOS and TEREA marks are reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms (here, “kibris”, meaning “Cyprus” in Turkish) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such 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 3.1, 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. 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. The Panel further notes the composition of the disputed domain name, which carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant, and that the Website does not disclose the Respondent’s (lack) or relationship with the Complainant. These circumstances prevent a finding of rights or legitimate interests on the Respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, sections 2.5.1 and 2.8.1. page 4 The Panel further notes the copyright notice at the Website (“© 2018 IQOS Cyprus”). Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (impersonation/passing off) can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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 light of the manner of registration and use of the disputed domain name, to pass off as an authorized distributor of the Complainant’s products in Türkiye, the Panel finds that the requisite element of bad faith has been made out pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. Furthermore, panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity (impersonation/passing off) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. 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 <iqostereakibris.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Sebastian M.W. Hughes/ Sebastian M.W. Hughes Sole Panelist Date: July 16, 2026

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