WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Gu Yong Ming Case No. D2018-1602 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A. of Neuchâtel, Switzerland, represented by Simone Intellectual Property Services Asia Limited, China.

The Respondent is Gu Yong Ming of Putian, Fujian, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 17, 2018. On July 17, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 18, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response providing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 19, 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 amended Complaint on July 20, 2018.

On July 19, 2018, the Center sent an email in English and Chinese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding on July 20, 2018. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.

The Center verified that 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 in English and Chinese of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 26, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 15, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 16, 2018.

The Center appointed Sok Ling MOI as the sole panelist in this matter on August 21, 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 part of the Philip Morris Group of Companies which is one of the world's leaders in manufacturing and selling tobacco products, including its best-selling Marlboro cigarettes launched in 1972.

In seeking to transform its business from combustible cigarettes to reduced-risk-products, the Philip Morris Group of Companies developed and launched the IQOS heating device, which allows specially designed tobacco products to be inserted and heated to generate a flavourful nicotine-containing aerosol. The IQOS system also consists of an IQOS pocket charger specially designed to charge the IQOS holder (collectively referred to as "the IQOS product"). The IQOS product was first launched in Japan in 2014, and is now available for sale in official IQOS stores, websites (such as "") and authorized distributors and retailers in 38 markets across the world. The IQOS product is however not yet available for sale in China, where the Respondent is purportedly based.

The Complainant has registered the IQOS trade mark in several jurisdictions around the world, including the following China trade mark registrations:

Jurisdiction

Mark

Class

Registration No.

Registration Date

China

IQOS

15098769

June 28, 2015

China

iQOS

15098772

June 21, 2015

China

iQOS

16314287

May 14, 2016

China

IQOS

16314286

May 14, 2016

China

16314289

May 14, 2016

The disputed domain name was registered on June 5, 2018. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name resolved to a website which purported to offer after-sales repair, resale and recycling services for the Complainant's IQOS products. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its trade mark.

The Complainant contends that as the Complainant has not licensed or otherwise authorized the Respondent to use its trade mark, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name has been registered and used to create confusion and mislead Internet users into believing that the Respondent's website is in some way connected with or endorsed by the Complainant. The Complainant therefore contends that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith.

For all of the above reasons, the Complainant requests for 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 6.1 Procedural Issue: Language of the Proceeding

Pursuant to paragraph 11(a) of the Rules, unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.

Paragraphs 10(b) and (c) of the Rules require the Panel to ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition and that the Parties are treated equitably and given a fair opportunity to present their respective cases.

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. From the evidence on record, no agreement appears to have been entered into between the Complainant and the Respondent regarding the language issue. The Complainant filed its Complaint in English and has requested that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.

Although the Respondent appears to be a Chinese native individual, the Panel finds persuasive evidence in the present proceeding to suggest that the Respondent has sufficient knowledge of English. In particular, the Panel notes that:

(a) the disputed domain name is registered in Latin characters, rather