À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Milojko

Case No. D2014-1341

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Philip Morris USA Inc. of Richmond, Virginia, United States of America, represented by Arnold & Porter, United States of America ("United States").

The Respondent is Milojko of Serbia.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <marlboroadvance.com> (the "Domain Name") is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the "Registrar").

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on August 7, 2014. On August 8, 2014, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On August 11, 2014, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

On August 13, 2014, the Center received the request of suspension of the proceedings from the Complainant by email. The Center notified the parties of the suspension of the proceedings on August 14, 2014. On September 16, 2014, upon request from the Complainant, the proceedings were reinstituted.

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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on September 18, 2014. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was October 8, 2014. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on October 9, 2014.

The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on October 23, 2014. 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 manufactures, markets and sells cigarettes in the United States, including under its famous MARLBORO trademarks. Marlboro cigarettes have been made and sold by the Complainant (and its predecessors) since 1883. For many decades, the Complainant has used its trademarks comprising MARLBORO for its tobacco and smoking-related products.

The Complainant is the proprietor of a number of registered trademarks in respect of MARLBORO including United States trademark No. 68,502 MARLBORO registered on April 14, 1908.

The Domain Name was registered on January 28, 2014. At the date of the Complaint, the Domain Name resolved to a website (the "Website") comprising advertising links to a number of third party websites. In addition, the Website included a hyperlink comprising the text "BUY THIS DOMAIN. The domain MARLBOROADVANCE.COM may be for sale by its owner!"

5. Parties' Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its MARLBORO trademark, that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. On August 8, 2014 the Respondent sent an email to the Complainant's representative stating that [sic] "an error occurred when registering <marlboroadvance.com> did not know how to delete it and the site was left to do. If you can delete the site Thank you". In a later email, the Respondent agreed to the transfer of the Domain Name to the Complainant and as a result the administrative proceedings were suspended. In the event, however, the Domain Name was not transferred and the proceedings were reinstated.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that:

(i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and

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

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has undoubted, uncontested rights in the trademark MARLBORO both by virtue of its various trademark registrations and as acquired through widespread use for very many years. Ignoring the suffix ".com" for this purpose, the Domain Name comprises the trademark MARLBORO together with the word "advance". The generic term "advance" does not detract from the distinctiveness of the MARLBORO trademark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a mark or marks in which the Complainant has rights.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made out a prima facie case that the Respondent can have no rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. The Respondent is not authorised in any way by the Complainant to use the MARLBORO mark as part of the Domain Name. The Website simply features advertising links to third party websites and includes the statement that the Domain Name may be for sale. The Respondent's email to the Complainant's representative of August 8, 2014 clearly implies that the Respondent accepts that it does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

Indeed, the Respondent has chosen not to reply to the Complaint or to make out any claim to any relevant rights or legitimate interests or otherwise to displace the prima facie case made out by the Complainant. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

In view of the notoriety of the Complainant's MARLBORORO trademark, the Panel is in no doubt that the Respondent must have had the Complainant and its rights in the MARLBORO name in mind when it registered the Domain Name. Further, the Panel cannot conceive of any legitimate, bona fide reason for the registration of the Domain Name. The circumstances of the registration and the use to which the Domain Name has been put represent paradigm bad faith registration and use with a view to financial gain.

Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

7. Decision

For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name <marlboroadvance.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: November 2, 2014

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/fr/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/