WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Philip Morris Products S.A. v. Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC / Miraynur Tekler Case No. D2019-0816 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Philip Morris Products S.A. of Neuchâtel, Switzerland, represented by D.M. Kisch Inc., South Africa.

The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains by Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America (“United States”) / Miraynur Tekler of Istanbul, Turkey. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name (“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 April 10, 2019. On April 10, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 10, 2019, 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 April 11, 2019, 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 April 11, 2019.

The Center verified that the Complaint 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 April 12, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 2, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 3, 2019.

The Center appointed Nicholas Smith as the sole panelist in this matter on May 8, 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 and its related entities are a corporate group focused on the sale of tobacco products. The Complainant group has sales in 180 countries and sells a number of leading tobacco brands such as MARLBORO. The Complainant group has developed a number of products described as Reduced Risk Products (“RRP”) which are products that present less harm to a smoker then a traditional combustible cigarette. One of the Complainant group’s RRPs is IQOS which is a heating device into which tobacco products under the brand name HEETS are inserted to generate a nicotine-containing aerosol. The IQOS system was first launched in Japan in 2014 and is available in 44 markets across the world, not including Turkey, the location of the Respondent. The IQOS system is almost exclusively distributed through the Complainant group’s official stores and selected authorised distributors and retailers.

The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations for “IQOS” (the “IQOS Mark”), including an international registration registered on July 10, 2014 (No. 1218246) designating jurisdictions including the European Union, Israel, India and Vietnam and an international registration for a device containing “IQOS” (“IQOS Device”) registered November 22, 2016 which designates various countries including Turkey.

The Domain Name was registered on December 8, 2018 by the Respondent, using a privacy service. The Domain Name contains the IQOS Mark and the Turkish words “toptan” and “al” and is informally translated as “get wholesale IQOS”. The Domain Name resolves to a website (“the Respondent’s Website”) in Turkish that reproduces the IQOS Mark and various product images and marketing materials in which the Complainant holds copyright. The Respondent’s Website purports to offer the Complainant’s IQOS and HEETS products, notwithstanding that the Complainant does not currently offer its IQOS and HEETS products in Turkey. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant makes the following contentions:

(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s IQOS Mark,

(ii) that the Respondent has no rights nor any legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and

(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.

The Complainant is the owner of the IQOS Mark, having registered the IQOS Mark in numerous jurisdictions, including the United States. The Domain Name reproduces the IQOS Mark along with the descriptive Turkish words “toptan” and “al” that do not distinguish the Domain Name from the IQOS Mark.

There are no rights or legitimate interests held by the Respondent in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent is not commonly known as the Domain Name nor does the Respondent have any authorization from the Complainant to register the Domain Name. The Respondent is not making a legitimate non-commercial fair use of the Domain Name. Rather the Respondent is using the Domain Name to create a website that purport to sell the Complainant’s products and reproduce Complainant’s marks and copyrighted photos and promotional material, such use not being bona fide.

The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. By using the Domain Name for a website that reproduces the Complainant’s copyrighted photos and purports to represent the Complainant, the Respondent is clearly aware of the IQOS Mark and is using it to deceive consumers as to its affiliation with the Complainant. Such conduct amounts to registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

To prove this element the Complainant must have trade