Nexoraiqos.com

The timeline behind nexoraiqos.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. Ahmet Bakir Case No. D2026-2725 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A., Switzerland, represented by Akran Intellectual Property, Italy. The Respondent is Ahmet Bakir, Türkiye. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <nexoraiqos.com> is registered with NameCheap, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 23, 2026. On June 24, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 25, 2026, the Registrar sent to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for Privacy, Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on the same date, 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 30, 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 proceedings commenced on July 1, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 21, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 22, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Simone Lahorgue Nunes as the sole panelist in this matter on July 27, 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 headquartered in Switzerland and is a subsidiary of Philip Morris International, Inc (“PMI”). The Complainant is “a leading international tobacco and smoke-free products company, with products sold in approximately 180 countries.” The Complainant has provided evidence of being the rights holder of the trademark IQOS. For instance: International Registration No. 1338099, registered on November 22, 2016; International Registration No. 1461017, registered on 18 January 2019; and International Registration No. 1557546, registered on August 27, 2020. The disputed domain name was registered by the Respondent on May 15, 2026. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive webpage. However, the Complainant has provided screenshots showing that the website previously displayed a reproduction of the Complainant’s IQOS trademark and featured several of the Complainant’s official product images and marketing materials. The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 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 “registered the disputed domain name on May 15, 2026, concealing his identity behind a privacy registration service”. The Complainant further submits that “the Respondent is not known to, or in any way related to, the Complainant or any PMI affiliate, and is not authorized to use the IQOS trademarks”. The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name resolves to a Turkish-language website that falsely suggests its affiliation with the Complainant by displaying the IQOS trademark, together with the Complainant’s official product images and marketing materials. In addition, the website contains the phrase “© 2026 IQOS Turkey. All Rights Reserved” which the Complainant argues is “a generic and misleading copyright claim which fails to identify any legitimate rights holder or legal entity”. According to the Complainant, the Respondent’s website’s layout, including the unauthorized use of the trademark and the copyright claim, is likely to mislead consumers into believing that the online shop is officially authorized by, or affiliated with, the Complainant. The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s website is “purporting to be an official online retailer of the Complainant’s IQOS System and TEREA/HEETS tobacco products in Turkey”. The Complainant affirms that such use is particularly illegitimate given that the IQOS System and TEREA/HEETS tobacco products are not currently sold by the Complainant in Türkiye. The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its IQOS trademark, as it incorporates the mark in its entirety. The addition of the word “nexora” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” should be disregarded for purposes of the first element of the UDRP. page 3 Furthermore, the Complainant argues that it “has made a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks any right or legitimate interest in the Disputed Domain Name” and that it “has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use any of its trademarks or to register a domain name incorporating its IQOS trademark (or a domain name which will be associated with this trademark)”. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent “is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name. On the contrary, the Respondent’s behaviour shows a clear intent to obtain an unfair commercial gain, with a view to misleadingly diverting consumers or to tarnish the trademarks owned by the Complainant”. The Complainant also argues that it is “evident from the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name that the Respondent knew of the Complainant’s trademarks when registering the Disputed Domain Name” since “the term IQOS is not commonly used to refer to tobacco products”. Moreover, it is “beyond the realm of reasonable coincidence that the Respondent chose the Disputed Domain Name without the intention of invoking a misleading association with the Complainant”. Furthermore, the Complainant submits that the fact that the Respondent “utilized a privacy protection service to hide its true identity may in itself constitute a factor indicating bad faith”. Finally, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name to the Complainant. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings The analysis of the Complainant’s arguments and of the presented evidence leads to the conclusion that the Complaint should be upheld, based on the following grounds. 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 of WIPO Panel Views on Select UDRP Questions (“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 mark 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 other terms here, “nexora”, 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. page 4 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. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, including 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 the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark, for the following reasons: First, it is clear that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. This conclusion is reinforced by (i) the absence of credible explanation for the Respondent’s choice of the disputed domain name; and (ii) the Respondent’s failure to reply to the Complainant’s contentions. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. Second, the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name to redirect users to a website that reproduces the Complainant’s trademark and offers its products demonstrates a clear intent to impersonate the Complainant and leads to a finding of bad faith. 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 <nexoraiqos.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Simone Lahorgue Nunes/ Simone Lahorgue Nunes Sole Panelist Date: August 7, 2026

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