WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Philip Morris USA Inc. v. Cioco Vincent, KingWerty Ltd.

Case No. D2016-1572

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Cioco Vincent, KingWerty ltd., Houston, California, United States of America.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <grow-marlboro.com> is registered with Gransy, s.r.o. d/b/a subreg.cz (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on August 2, 2016. On August 3, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On August 4, 2016, 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.

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 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 30, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 19, 2016. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 21, 2016.

The Center appointed William F. Hamilton as the sole panelist in this matter on October 17, 2016. 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. The Complainant has actively utilized the MARLBORO mark (the “Mark”) since at least 1955 in connection with its tobacco and smoking related products. The original United States registration of the Mark dates back to 1908. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <www.marlboro.com> that promotes the Complainant’s tobacco and cigarette products.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on January 19, 2016. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active website.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant asserts that disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Mark, that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in either the Mark or the disputed domain name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed 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

The disputed domain name is composed of the term “grow-” prefixed to the Complainant’s Mark. Numerous UDRP WIPO panels have determined that domain names composed by the addition of generic prefixes and/or suffixes to the Mark are confusingly similar to the Mark. See e.g.Philip Morris USA, Inc. v. Ciger, WIPO Case No. D2011-1675 (transferring <marlboroblack.com>). The Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Mark. The Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Respondent did respond to the Complaint. The Complainant affirmatively asserts that the Complainant never authorized the Respondent’s use of the Mark or the disputed domain name. There is no evidence that the Respondent has conducted any bona fide business under the disputed domain name. Indeed the disputed domain name points to an empty location. The Panel finds that the Respondent does not possess any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and that the Complainant has met the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Respondent’s passive holding of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith registration and use for the following reasons.

- The actual passive holding of the disputed domain name is evidence of bad faith registration and use because there is no evidence of prior legitimate use of the Mark or disputed domain name by the Respondent.

- The Complainant’s Mark registration dates back over a century; it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s Mark when registering the disputed domain name. Phillip Morris USA, Inc. v. ADN HOSTING, WIPO Case No. D2007-1609.

- A simple Internet search or domain name search would have disclosed the Complainant’s ownership of the Mark and the extensive scope of Complainant’s use of the Mark. This is further evidence of bad faith registration and use.

The above factors combined with the inferences drawn from to the Respondent's failure to respond to the Complaint shows that the Respondent has registered and used the disputed domain name in bad faith. Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.

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 disputed domain name <grow-marlboro.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

William F. Hamilton
Sole Panelist
Date: October 30, 2016