Tereafiyat.com

The timeline behind tereafiyat.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. Erdal Cakmak Case No. D2026-3625 1. The Parties The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A., Switzerland, represented by Akran Intellectual Property, Italy. The Respondent is Erdal Cakmak, Türkiye. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <tereafiyat.com> is registered with Automattic Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 13, 2026. On August 14, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 14, 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 (Knock Knock WHOIS Not There, LLC) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 17, 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 August 18, 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 August 26, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 15, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 16, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Nathalie Dreyfus as the sole panelist in this matter on September 21, 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, Philip Morris Products S.A., is a company forming part of the group of companies affiliated with Philip Morris International Inc. (“PMI”), a leading international tobacco and smoke-free products company operating in approximately 180 countries. PMI has developed several reduced-risk products, including the IQOS tobacco heating system, which uses specially designed tobacco sticks marketed under brands including HEETS, HeatSticks, DELIA, LEVIA, and TEREA. The IQOS System was first launched in Japan in 2014 and is now available in around 84 markets worldwide. Following investments exceeding USD 12.5 billion in the development of smoke-free products, PMI states that approximately 33 million consumers use its smoke-free products globally. The IQOS System is mainly distributed through PMI’s official stores and websites, as well as selected authorized distributors and retailers. The Complainant owns a large portfolio of trademark registrations for its smoke-free products, notably: - International Registration TEREA (word) No. 1765887 registered on October 19, 2023 in many jurisdictions. - Turkish Registration TEREA (word) No. 2019/128867 registered on September 17, 2020. The Complainant owns numerous other TEREA trademark registrations and applications worldwide; according to the Complainant, its global trademark portfolio comprises more than 1,400 registrations across some 190 jurisdictions. The disputed domain name was registered on March 24, 2025. It resolved to an online shop at “www.tereafiyat.com” (the “Website”), which presents itself as “TEREA SHOP” and offers, in Turkish and with prices in Turkish lira, the Complainant’s IQOS ILUMA devices and HEETS and TEREA tobacco sticks, together with third-party products such as JUUL pods, with delivery throughout Türkiye. The Website reproduced the Complainant’s official product images, does not identify its operator and displays the notice “TEREA FİYAT ® 2025 - tüm hakları saklıdır” (“TEREA price ® 2025 - all rights reserved”). The Respondent is an individual located in Türkiye. The Complainant has shown that the Respondent was the respondent in Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Erdal Cakmak, WIPO Case No. D2025-3015, concerning the domain name <iqosilumashop.com>, registered on March 14, 2025, and used for a Turkish-language website offering the Complainant’s IQOS products alongside third-party products; the transfer of that domain name was ordered on September 16, 2025. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant or any PMI affiliate and has not been authorized to use the TEREA trademarks or any other trademark of the group. The Complainant further states that its IQOS System and HEETS and TEREA products are not currently sold in Türkiye. 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 name. Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its TEREA trademarks, since the disputed domain name identically adopts the Complainant’s TEREA trademark with the addition of the generic Turkish word “fiyat”, which translates as “price”. The addition of this word does not dispel, but rather enhances, the likelihood of confusion, particularly where the Website is used for an online store offering TEREA-branded products. The Complainant also contends that any Internet user when visiting a website provided under the disputed domain name will reasonably expect to find a website commercially linked to the owner of the TEREA trademark. This unlawful association is exacerbated by the use of the Complainant’s official product images and marketing materials without the Complainant’s authorization. Moreover, the Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not an authorized distributor or reseller of IQOS, TEREA or HEETS products and is offering such products in Türkiye even though the IQOS System has not been officially launched there. The Website also offers third-party nicotine products, including JUUL products, and therefore does not satisfy the conditions for a bona fide offering under the Oki Data principles. The Complainant further submits that the Website prominently uses the TEREA trademark, official product images and marketing materials without authorization, while failing to disclose the identity or legal status of the website operator or any relationship with the Complainant. In the Complainant’s view, these elements create the false impression that the Website is an official or authorized TEREA retailer and therefore does not give rise to any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. According to the Complainant, the Respondent was clearly aware of the TEREA trademark when registering the disputed domain name, as the Website began offering the Complainant’s IQOS and TEREA products shortly after registration. The Complainant further argues that the distinctive nature of the TEREA trademark makes it highly unlikely that the Respondent selected the disputed domain name by coincidence. The Complainant also submits that the Respondent has intentionally sought to attract Internet users for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Website. In support of this contention, the Website reproduces the TEREA trademark, presents itself as “TEREA SHOP”, uses the Complainant’s official product images and marketing materials, and displays notices designed to create an appearance of legitimacy. The Complainant further relies on the Respondent’s use of a privacy service as an additional factor supporting bad faith. Relying on Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Erdal Cakmak, WIPO Case No. D2025-3015 (Annex 10 to the amended Complaint), the Complainant finally contends that the Respondent, who previously registered and used the domain name <iqosilumashop.com> in bad faith to target the Complainant’s IQOS and ILUMA trademarks, is engaged in a pattern of abusive registrations within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy. The Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 4 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant must prove that (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights, (ii) the 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 Respondent’s default does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant; however, under paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel may draw such inferences from the Respondent’s failure to submit a response 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 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, including the TEREA word mark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The entirety of the TEREA mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name, the generic Top-Level Domain “.com” being disregarded as a standard registration requirement (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1). 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 “fiyat” (meaning “price” 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. page 5 The Complainant has confirmed that it has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its TEREA trademark, and there is no evidence that the Respondent is commonly known by the disputed domain name; the name “TEREA FİYAT” displayed on the Website is itself derived from the Complainant’s trademark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.3. The Website offers the Complainant’s IQOS ILUMA devices and HEETS and TEREA tobacco sticks alongside competing third-party products, and prominently displays the Complainant’s TEREA trademark, including in the “TEREA SHOP” logo, accompanied by a false copyright notice (“TEREA FİYAT ® 2025 - tüm hakları saklıdır”), while providing no information regarding the identity of its operator. Such use creates a misleading impression of an official affiliation with the Complainant. The Panel has considered whether the Respondent could be regarded as a reseller or service provider that may have legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under the criteria set out in Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903. These criteria require that: (i) the respondent must actually offer the goods or services at issue; (ii) the respondent must use the website to sell only the trademarked goods or services; (iii) the website must accurately and prominently disclose the respondent’s relationship with the trademark holder; and (iv) the respondent must not try to “corner the market” in domain names that reflect the trademark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.8.1. In this case, the Respondent fails to satisfy these requirements. First, the Respondent is offering not only the Complainant’s trademarked products but also competing third-party products such as JUUL pods. Second, the Website contains no disclaimer indicating the lack of any relationship with the Complainant. On the contrary, the Respondent’s use of the “TEREA SHOP” logo and the “TEREA FİYAT ®” notice, together with the reproduction of the Complainant’s official product images, increases the likelihood that Internet users will mistakenly assume an affiliation with the Complainant. Such circumstances preclude a finding of a bona fide offering of goods or services under the Oki Data test. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Website is deliberately designed to create confusion as to its association with the Complainant and its TEREA trademark, in order to divert traffic, exploit the Complainant’s reputation, and sell competing products for commercial gain. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegal activity, here impersonation/passing off as an official or authorized retailer of the Complainant for commercial gain, 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 Complainant’s TEREA trademark was registered in Türkiye in 2020, well before the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name on March 24, 2025. page 6 Additionally, the disputed domain name incorporates the TEREA trademark in its entirety together with the Turkish term “fiyat” (meaning “price”), and the content of the corresponding Website, which prominently displays the Complainant’s TEREA trademark and official product images, demonstrates that the Respondent was clearly aware of the Complainant and its business and TEREA trademark at the time of registering the disputed domain name. This is confirmed by the Wayback Machine capture of May 12, 2025, which shows that, less than two months after the registration of the disputed domain name, the Respondent was already using it for a website offering the Complainant’s IQOS and TEREA products. The Website prominently reproduces the Complainant’s TEREA trademark, official product images and marketing materials, and presents itself as “TEREA SHOP”, thereby creating the impression that it is an official or authorized online retailer of the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.2. The Panel therefore finds that, by using the disputed domain name in this manner, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to the Website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s TEREA trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Website. Such conduct falls within the circumstances described in paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy and constitutes evidence of registration and use in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.4. The Panel further notes that, on March 14, 2025, i.e., ten days before the disputed domain name, the Respondent registered the domain name <iqosilumashop.com>, which reproduces the Complainant’s IQOS and ILUMA trademarks, and used it for a similar Turkish-language online shop offering the Complainant’s products alongside third-party products. The transfer of that domain name was ordered in Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Erdal Cakmak, WIPO Case No. D2025-3015, on September 16, 2025. Although that decision postdates the registration of the disputed domain name, the two registrations, made within ten days by the same person and targeting the Complainant’s trademarks for the same type of website, reflect a pattern of conduct within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(ii) of the Policy (WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.1.2) and, in any event, further confirm the Respondent’s bad faith. Finally, the Panel notes that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name using a privacy service, its identity having been disclosed only through the Registrar’s verification. While the use of a privacy service is not in itself an indication of bad faith, in the circumstances of this case, where it is combined with the impersonation of an official or authorized retailer of the Complainant, it further supports the Panel’s finding of bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.6. The Panel finds the third element of the Policy has been established. 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 <tereafiyat.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Nathalie Dreyfus/ Nathalie Dreyfus Sole Panelist Date: September 30, 2026

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