WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Zhanbo, Zhangzhiyong Case No. D2018-2694 1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Zhanbo, Zhangzhiyong of Guiyang, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with Xin Net Technology Corp. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 23, 2018. On November 23, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On November 26, 2018, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on November 27, 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 December 2, 2018.

On November 27, 2018, the Center transmitted 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 November 28, 2018. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

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 December 6, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 26, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 27, 2018.

The Center appointed Douglas Clark as the sole panelist in this matter on January 15, 2019. 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 one of the world’s leading international tobacco companies, with its presence in more than 180 countries. It has developed a number of new reduced risk products that have the potential to present less risk of harm to smokers who switch to these products as opposed to smoking traditional cigarettes. One of these products that the Complainant developed and is being sold is the IQOS.

The IQOS holder is a tobacco heating system designed to heat, rather than burn a specific type of tobacco stick with a controlled temperature range that generates the taste of tobacco without using fire like traditional cigarettes. This product was launched in 2014 and is now available in 43 countries around the world.

The Complainant is the owner of various IQOS trademarks in numerous jurisdictions including Chinese trademark nos. 16314287 and 16314286 (both registered on May 14, 2016) and international trademark registration no. 1329691 (registered on August 10, 2016) that designates China.

The Respondent is an individual based in Guiyang, China.

The disputed domain name was registered on May 16, 2018. The disputed domain name resolves to a page that appears to be online platform that sells IQOS products. At the top of the page, it bears a “IQOS” mark with additional Chinese words “花样世界”and “电子烟”, which means “floral world” and “electronic cigarette”. Other sub-webpages also contain online display of IQOS products for potential customers to purchase. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name and the trademark “IQOS” are confusingly similar. The disputed domain name contains “IQOS” in its entirety as the distinctive part of the disputed domain name. The additional English alphabet “v” does not affect the similarity of the disputed domain name to the registered trademark. No rights or legitimate Interests

The Respondent has no connection with the Complainant or any of its affiliates and has never sought or obtained any trademark registrations for IQOS. It, therefore, has no righ