WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Hristo Aleksandrov Case No. D2018-1939 1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Hristo Aleksandrov of Varna, Bulgaria. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GoD, LLC (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 27, 2018. On August 27, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 27, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing the registrant and contact information for the disputed domain name. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on August 29, 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 August 30, 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 September 4, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 24, 2018. On September 5, 2018, at the request of the Complainant, the administrative proceeding was suspended and on September 19, 2018 it was reinstituted. The new due date for Response was October 8, 2018.

The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Parties of the commencement of the panel appointment process on October 9, 2018.

The Center appointed Reyes Campello Estebaranz as the sole panelist in this matter on October 17, 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 a leading multinational tobacco company group with an extensive brand portfolio and products sold internationally, which has developed a number of reduced risk products to substitute combustible cigarettes, one of which is branded under the trademark IQOS.

IQOS products are controlled heating devices into which specially designed tobacco products (under the brand names HEETS and HEATSTICKS) are inserted and heated to generate a flavorful nicotine-containing aerosol, having a pocket charger specially designed to charge the IQOS holder. These products are available internationally in around 38 markets, including Bulgaria (where the Respondent is located), and are distributed through the Complainant’s official stores and websites, as well as selected authorized distributors and retailers.

The Complainant holds several trademark registrations throughout the world for its trademarks IQOS and HEETS, alone or in combination with designs, of which the following are sufficiently representative for the present proceeding:

- International Trademark No. 1218246 IQOS, registered July 10, 2014, in classes 9, 11 and 34, designating the European Union among others,

- International Trademark No. 1329691 IQOS, figurative, registered August 10, 2016, in classes 9, 11 and 34, designating the European Union among others,

- International Trademark No. 1328679 HEETS, figurative, registered July 20, 2016, in classes 9, 11 and 34, designating the European Union among others,

The disputed domain name was registered on July 20, 2018, and it is linked to a website provided in Bulgarian, which allegedly offers the Complainant’s IQOS and HEETS branded products, as well as other competing brand products from different commercial origin. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Key contentions of the Complaint may be summarized as follows:

The Complainant says its company and its IQOS products enjoy worldwide reputation due to extensive international sales and marketing efforts, producing evidence of it.

The Complainant asserts the Respondent is not related to its group, and is not authorized to use the IQOS trademarks. However, its Website is clearly suggesting being an official dealer by prominently using its trademark accompanied by the geographic indication Bulgaria at its top left corner (common location for the name of the online shop and/or the Website provider). Further, this Website uses various of the Complainant’s official product images and marketing material, not showing any details regarding its real owner of this site and not acknowledging the Complainant’s rights. Further, this Website offers some official IQOS branded accessories as well as competing accessories of other commercial origin (stickers and cases).

The Complainant further asserts the disputed domain name reproduces its trademark IQOS in its entirety, along with the descriptive geographic abbreviation “bg” representing Bulgaria, misleadingly attempting to indicate that the Website provided under the disputed domain name is the official store of its trademark for said country. It is therefore confusingly similar to its trademark regardless of the extension “.com”, which is of no importance in assessing confusing similarity for purposes of the Policy due to its consideration as a technical requirement.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, as it has not been authorized to use the IQOS trademark, and the disputed domain name is neither used in connection to any bona fide offering of goods or services, nor for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. The Respondent’s behavior shows its intention to obtain a commercial gain, misleadingly diverting relevant consumers or tarnish its trademarks, not meeting the requirements set out by numerous previous panel decisions (the leading case being Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2001-0903) for a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent is not only promoting the Complainant’s products but also third party competing accessories, of other commercial origin. This fact prevents the finding of a bona fide offering of goods on behalf of the Respondent. Furthermore, a domain name cannot be “fair” if it suggests affiliation with the trademark owner, and the disputed domain suggests an affiliation with the Complainant and its IQOS trademark, as it reproduces this trademark in its entirety together with the abbreviation “bg” which is commonly used to indicate Bulgaria. The content of the Respondent’s Website further contributes to mislead users crea