WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Altria Group, Inc. / Altria Group Distribution Company v. Domains By Proxy, LLC / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico Case No. D2019-1127 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Altria Group, Inc., United States of America / Altria Group Distribution Company, United States of America, represented by CSC Digital Brand Services AB, Sweden.

The Respondent is Domains By Proxy, LLC, United States of America / Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico, Panama. 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 May 16, 2019. On May 16, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On May 17, 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 May 20, 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 May 23, 2019.

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 May 23, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was June 12, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on June 13, 2019.

The Center appointed Willem J. H. Leppink as the sole panelist in this matter on June 17, 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 following facts are undisputed.

The Complainant is the parent company of four tobacco operating companies, including Philip Morris USA Inc., the manufacturer of cigarettes under the MARLBORO trademark.

The Complainant also uses the ALTRIA trademark in offering charitable services such as providing scholarships and financial services. The Complainant owns the domain name and operates a website at “www.” that provides information about the Complainant and its operating companies.

The Complainant is the registered owner of the following trademarks on the principal register of the United States Patent and Trademark Office including:

Trademark

Registration Number

Registration Date

ALTRIA

3,029,629

December 13, 2005

ALTRIA & Design

3,073,900

March 28, 2006

ALTRIA

4,815,825

September 22, 2015

ALTRIA & Design

4,820,612

September 29, 2015

These trademarks will also be referred to as the “Trademark”.

The Domain Name was registered on August 13, 2018 and redirects to third party websites. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

Insofar as relevant, the Complainant contends the following.

In creating the Domain Name, the Respondent has added the generic, descriptive term “rewards” to the Trademark, thereby making the Domain Name confusingly similar to the Trademark. The fact that such term is closely linked and associated with the Complainant’s brand and the Trademark only serves to underscore and increase the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Trademark. The Complainant refers to the existence of the MARLBORO Rewards program.

The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name, which evinces a lack of rights or legitimate interests. Furthermore, the Respondent is not sponsored by or affiliated with the Complainant in any way. The Complainant has not licensed, authorized, or permitted the Respondent to register domain names incorporating the Complainant’s Trademark. Furthermore, at the time of filing the Complaint, the Respondent was using a privacy WhoIs service, which past panels have also found to equate to a lack of legitimate interest.

The Domain Name occasionally redirects to third party websites that promote online gambling activities, online travel and accommodation search portal or a fictitious HBO page promoting the recent trend of Game of Thrones. In other occasions, the Domain Name redirects to a website which requires users to complete a survey to receive a FREE Samsung Galaxy S10+…” In creating the impression that the Respondent’s website is one that is authorized and administered by the Complainant, the Respondent’s purpose is to fool unsuspecting visitors into divulging their personal information, according to their locations, by completing a survey with Singtel, a telecommunications company in Singapore. Thus, the website at which the Domain Name resolves seeks to take advantage of the fame of the Complainant’s trademarks and the trust and goodwill that the Complainant has fostered among consumers to, at minimum, illegitimately increase traffic to the Respondent’s website for personal gain, and at worst, ‘phish’ personal information from the Complainant’s customers (in the event that the Respondent seeks to obtain visitors’ personal information as part of a larger scheme to perpetrate fraud by exploiting the fraudulently acquired personal information to, perhaps, acquire sensitive financial information). This use of the Domain Name, presumably for commercial gain, and with devious, nefarious motives, clearly fails to constitute a bona fide offering of goods or services.

There will also be instances where the Domain Name redirects to a pay-per-click site. The Respondent is using the Domain Name to redirect Internet users to a website featuring links to third-party websites, some of which directly compete with the Complainant’s business. For instance, the website at which the Domain Name resolves features multiple third-party links for reward cards that implied the Complainant’s reward program in the United States. Presumably, The Respondent receives pay-per-click fees from the linked websites that are listed at the Domain Name’s website.

The Domain Name is being offered for sale in an amount that far exceeds the Respondent’s out-of-pocket expenses in registering the domain, which serves as further evidence of the Respondent’s lack of rights and legitimate interests. Past Panels have consistently upheld this view