Koninklijke Philips N.V. v Mr. Hossein Gholamrezaei

WIPO Case No. DIR2025-0004

ARBITRATION

AND

MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Koninklijke Philips N.V. v. Mr. Hossein Gholamrezaei

Case No. DIR2025-0004

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Koninklijke Philips N.V., Netherlands (Kingdom of the), represented Coöperatie SNB-

REACT U.A., Netherlands (Kingdom of the).

The Respondent is Mr. Hossein Gholamrezaei, Iran (Islamic Republic of).

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <iran-philips.ir> (the “Disputed Domain Name”) is registered with IRNIC.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 4, 2025. On June 4, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain Name. On June 9, 2025, IRNIC transmitted by email to the Center its verification

response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name, which differed from received by the Center on June 6, 2025.

the named Respondent (name unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an
email communication to the Complainant on June 10, 2025, providing the registrant and contact inform
disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The
The Center verified that the Complaint and the amendment to the Complaint satisfied the formal
requirements of the .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir
Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir 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 June 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules,
paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was July 7, 2025. On July 8, 2025, the Center notified the
Respondent’s default.

page 2

The Center appointed Flip Jan Claude Petillion as the sole panelist in this matter on July 10, 2025. 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 a multinational health technology company, manufacturing healthcare and personal health products. The Complainant divested its lighting and consumer electronics divisions, but continues to license its trademarks for lighting and consumer electronics. The Complainant holds numerous trademarks, including the following:

- International trademark registration No. 310459 for PHILIPS, registered on March 16, 1966, in classes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 21, 28, 31, and 34;

- International trademark registration No. 991346 for , registered on June 13, 2008, in

classes 3, 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 25, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, and 45, with Iran (Islamic
Republic of) as a designated country;

- International trademark registration No. 1240236 for , registered on May 12, 2014, in classes 3,

5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 16, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 28, 35, 36, 37, 38, 41, 42, 44, and 45., with the Iran (Islamic
Republic of) as a designated country.

The Disputed Domain Name has been registered by the Respondent on October 9, 2020, and resolves to a
website displaying the Complainant’s figurative trademark, pictures of the Complainant’s products, and
Persian text. According to a machine translation, the Respondent presents itself on the website as the
“Philips representative office in Tehran”, claiming that “Iran Philips Company is the only official Philips

representative in Tehran and the importer of all kinds of original Philips products in Iran”.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the Disputed Domain Name.

First, the Complainant contends that the Disputed Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in

which it claims to have rights. 

Second, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the

Disputed Domain Name as, in summary, according to the Complainant: 

- the Respondent does not own any registered rights in any trademarks which, together with a

geographic term comprises the Disputed Domain Name;
- the Disputed Domain Name resolve to a website offering PHILIPS branded products for sale and
displaying the PHILIPS logo, also using pictures of the Complainant’s products available on the
Complainant’s website;

- the Respondent claims being the only official representative of Philips in Tehran, while not being an authorised representative of the Complainant;

page 3

- the Respondent is not using the Disputed Domain in connection with any bona fide offering of goods or services, as the Respondent attempts to pass itself off as the Complainant or its official representative in Iran (Islamic Republic of).

Finally, the Complainant claims that the Disputed Domain Name was registered or is being used in bad faith. 

In summary, according to the Complainant: 

- it is inconceivable that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant and its trademarks when registering the Disputed Domain Name;

- the Respondent was not authorised to register the Disputed Domain Name;

- the website to which the Disputed Domain Name resolves contains no accurate and prominent

disclosure of the Respondent’s relationship with the trademark holder (or lack thereof);
- by incorrectly stating that the Respondent is the official representative of the Complainant in Iran
(Islamic Republic of), the Respondent creates the false impression that the website is operated by the

Complainant or a company affiliated to the Complainant;

- the Respondent’s use of the Disputed Domain Name is manifestly intended to exploit the

Complainant’s reputation to attract Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing
(or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison
between the Complainant’s trademark and the Disputed Domain Name. While each case is judged on its
own merits, in cases where at least a dominant feature of the relevant mark is recognizable in a disputed
domain name, the domain name will normally be considered confusingly similar to that mark for purposes of
irDRP standing. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition,
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.[1]

[1] Given the similarities between the Policy and the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), the Panel finds the

Based on the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has shown rights in respect of trademarks or service marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The Disputed Domain Name contains the Complainant’s PHILIPS mark in its entirety. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant’s mark remains recognizable in the Disputed Domain Name.

The Disputed Domain Name combines the Complainant’s trademark with the geographic term “iran” and a hyphen. The addition of a hyphen does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See AB Electrolux v. SEHAWI Trading Co. (LTD), WIPO Case No. DIR2016-0034. Although the addition of other terms may bear

on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of the term “iran” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the Disputed Domain Name and the mark under the first element of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

page 4

Additionally, it is well established that country code Top-Level Domains (“ccTLDs”), here “.ir”, may be disregarded when considering whether a disputed domain name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which a complainant has rights.

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in irDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized
that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task
of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the
respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or
legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with
relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of
proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant
evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0,
section 2.1.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

The Panel notes that the Respondent has not apparently been commonly known by the Disputed Domain

Name, and that the Respondent does not seem to have acquired trademark or service mark rights. 

According to the information provided by the Registry, the Respondent is named “Hossein Gholamrezaei”.

Where a domain name consists of a trademark plus an additional term, irDRP panels have largely held that such composition cannot constitute fair use if it effectively impersonates or suggests sponsorship or endorsement by the trademark owner. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.5.1. In the present case, the Disputed Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s PHILIPS mark in its entirety. The Panel finds that the Disputed Domain Name, incorporating the Complainant’s PHILIPS mark with a geographic term, carries a risk of implied affiliation with the Complainant.

Beyond looking at the domain name and the nature of any additional terms appended to it, irDRP panels assess whether the overall facts and circumstances of the case, such as the content of the website linked to a disputed domain name and the absence of a response, support a fair use or not. WIPO Overview 3.0,

sections 2.5.2 and 2.5.3. 

figurative trademark and pictures of the Complainant’s products, where the Respondent presents itself as the “only official Philips representative in Tehran and the importer of all kinds of original Philips products in Iran”.	The Panel observes that the Disputed Domain Name resolves to a website displaying the Complainant’s noncommercial or fair use of the Disputed Domain Name in the circumstances of this case.
The Respondent had the opportunity to demonstrate its rights or legitimate interests but did not do so.  In the
absence of a Response from the Respondent, the prima facie case established by the Complainant has not
been rebutted.
The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

page 5

C. Registered or Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. Among these factors demonstrating bad faith registration and use is the use of a domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the website or location or of a product or service on the website or location.

In the present case, the Panel finds that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and its trademark rights when it registered the Disputed Domain Name:

- the Complainant’s PHILIPS marks predate the registration of the Disputed Domain Name by over a decade, including in Iran (Islamic Republic of) where the Respondent appears to be located and where the Disputed Domain Name refers to;

- the website linked to the Disputed Domain Name appears to offer personal healthcare products of the Complainant and consumer household products, licensed by the Complainant;

- the website linked to the Dispute Domain Name displays the Complainant’s figurative trademarks and pictures from the Complainant’s website.

In the Panel’s view, the circumstances of this case indicate that the Respondent has intentionally attempted
to attract Internet users to its websites for commercial gain by creating a likelihood of confusion with the

Complainant’s trademark. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.1.4.

By failing to respond to the Complaint, the Respondent did not take any initiative to contest the foregoing.

Pursuant to paragraph 14 of the Rules, the Panel may draw the conclusions it considers appropriate.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <iran-philips.ir> be transferred to the Complainant.

/Flip Jan Claude Petillion/
Flip Jan Claude Petillion
Sole Panelist
Date: July 23, 2025

WIPO Overview 3.0 and UDRP precedent to be relevant to this case.