WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyP) / Unal Ocalan Case No. D2018-1023 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A. of Neuchâtel, Switzerland, represented by Boehmert & Boehmert, Germany.

The Respondent is Domain Admin, Privacy Protect, LLC (PrivacyP) of Burlington, Massachusetts, United States of America / Unal Ocalan of Mugla, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (the “Domain Name”) is registered with PDR Ltd. d/b/a PublicDomainR (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 9, 2018. On May 11, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 12, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 15, 2018 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 amendment to the Complaint on May 17, 2018.

The Center verified that the Complaint together with the amendment to the 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 May 23, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 12, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 13, 2018.

The Center appointed Olga Zalomiy as the sole panelist in this matter on June 19, 2018. 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 a Swiss tobacco company, which is a part of the group of companies affiliated with Philip Morris International Inc., a leading international tobacco company. The Complainant is the owner of the IQOS trademarks worldwide, such as International trademark IQOS, registration number 1218246, registered on July 10, 2014.

The Complainant has also acquired a number of trademark registrations for its HEETS trademarks, such as International trademark HEETS (word/device), registration number 1328679, registered on July 20, 2016.

The Respondent registered the Domain Name on January 31, 2018. The Respondent has been using the Domain Name to direct to an online store (the “Website”) selling the Complainant’s HEETS and IQOS goods as well as accessories to those goods manufactured by third parties that are falsely labeled as IQOS goods . 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant’s contentions can be summarized as follows:

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to its IQOS trademarks because the Domain Name incorporates the mark in its entirety. The Complainant alleges that the generic Top-Level Domain (“the gTLD”) in the Domain Name should be disregarded under the confusing similarity test because it is a standard registration requirement. The Complainant argues that the addition of the descriptive word “trend” to the Complainant’s trademark in the Domain Name is insufficient to avoid confusing similarity.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name because the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise permitted the Respondent to use the Complainant’s IQOS trademark or to register the Domain Name incorporating the Complainant’s IQOS trademark. The Complainant argues that the Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the Domain Name as a reseller or a distributor because the Complainant is not an authorized distributor and because the Respondent’s website does not meet the Oki Data case (“Oki Data Test”)1 requirements.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith. The Complainant claims that the Respondent knew about the Complainant’s IQOS and HEETS trademarks when he registered the Domain Name because the Respondent started selling goods under those trademarks on the website associated with the Domain Name immediately after the Domain Name registration. The Complainant argues that the Respondent registered and used the Domain Name with the intention to attract for commercial gain Internet users to the Respondent’s website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s IQOS trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location of a product or service on his website or location. The Complainant claims that such actions of the Respondent constitute registration and use in bad faith. The Compla