xian gong si), JANICE TASTO, JANICE TASTO, Gelin Beverage
WIPO Case No. D2025-2089
•25-08-2025
ARBITRATION
AND
| MEDIATION CENTER |
ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION
Swedish Match North Europe, Pinkerton Tobacco Co. LP v. 黄新华
(huangxinhua), 厦门嘉浩伟业科技有限公司
(xiamenjiahaoweiyekejiyouxiangonsi), VV IC, narto tom, 陶鑫熠 (tao xin yi), In
nurta In nurta, ryan rosamino adfsgadf, 华俊卿(hua jun qing), 深圳市奈美文化
传媒有限公司 (shen zhen shi nai mei wen hua chuan mei you xian gong si),
何鼎卿 (he ding qing), 广州柏选科技有限公司 (guang zhou bai xuan ke ji you
xian gong si), JANICE TASTO, JANICE TASTO, Gelin Beverage
Case No. D2025-2089
1. The Parties
The Complainants are Swedish Match North Europe, Sweden; and Pinkerton Tobacco Co. LP, United
States of America (“United States”), represented by D.M. Kisch Inc., South Africa.
The Respondents are 黄新华 (huangxinhua), 厦门嘉浩伟业科技有限公司
(xiamenjiahaoweiyekejiyouxiangonsi), China (“First Respondent”); VV IC, Afghanistan; narto tom, United
States; 陶鑫熠 (tao xin yi), China; In nurta In nurta, United States; ryan rosamino adfsgadf, United States
华俊卿(hua jun qing), 深圳市奈美文化传媒有限公司 (shen zhen shi nai mei wen hua chuan mei you xian
gong si), China; 何鼎卿 (he ding qing), 广州柏选科技有限公司 (guang zhou bai xuan ke ji you xian gong si),
China; JANICE TASTO, JANICE TASTO, United States and Gelin Beverage, United States.
2. The Domain Names and Registrars
The disputed domain names <buyzynonline.com>, <buyzynpouches.shop>, <nikzyngo.shop>,
<nikzyn.shop>, <nikzyns.shop>, <poucheszyn-us.shop>, <priniczyn.com>, <priniczynonline.com>,
<tobazyn.shop>, <tozyn.shop>, <us-buyzyn.com>, <uspoucheszyn.shop>, <us-zynpouches.com>,
<varyzyn.shop>, <zynbag.shop>, <zynbuy.shop>, <zyninshop.shop>, <zyninstore.shop>, <zynjuice.shop>,
<zynnicopouch.shop>, <zynnicotpouches.shop>, <zynnicpouches.shop>, <zynonlineca.com>,
<zynonline.shop>, <zynpouches-club.com>, <zynpouchesonline.shop>, <zynpouch-us.com>,
<zynpurestoe.com>, <zynrevolve.com>, <zynsgo.shop>, <zynsgoshop.shop>, <zyn-shop.shop>,
<zynshop.store>, <zynsmoks.shop>, <zynsonlin.shop>, <zynsshopping.com>, <zynsshop.shop>,
<zynss.shop>, <zynvelo.com>, <zynvelostore.com>, <zynvelo79.shop>, <zynzshop.shop> and <zzyn.shop>
are registered with West263 International Limited.
The disputed domain names <bzyn.shop>, <zyn-authorization.com>, <crazy-zyn.shop> and <zyn-buy.com>
are registered with NameCheap, Inc.
The disputed domain names <zynicpouches.com>, <zyn-na.com> and <zynsmokers.com> are registered
with Gname.com Pte. Ltd.
page 2
The disputed domain names <iszyn.shop>, <lovezyn.shop>, <shopzyn.shop>, <storezyn.shop>,
<tuzyn.shop>, <zynbloom.shop>, <zynmain.shop>, <zynmarket.shop>, <zynsphere.shop>,
<zynworld.shop>, <zyn-official.shop>, <zynpouchesofficial.com>, <zynwholesale.shop>,
<us-zyn-nicotine.com> and <nicotine-zyn.com> are registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing Limited (d/b/a
HiChina (
(Collectively referred as the “Registrars”).
3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on May 14,
2025. On May 27, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrars a request for registrar verification
in connection with the disputed domain names. On May 27 and 28, 2025, the Registrars transmitted by
email to the Center their verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed
domain names which differed from the named Respondents (Private Registrations; VV IC; Privacy service
provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf; and Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint.
The Center sent an email communication to the Complainants on June 17, 2025 with the registrant and
contact information of nominally multiple underlying registrants revealed by the Registrars, requesting the
Complainants to either file separate complaint(s) for the disputed domain names associated with different
underlying registrants or alternatively, demonstrate that the underlying registrants are in fact the same entity
and/or that all domain names are under common control. The Complainants filed an amended Complaint in
English on June 18, 2025.
On June 17, 2025, the Center informed the Parties in Chinese and English, that the language of the
Registration Agreement for the disputed domain names <iszyn.shop>, <nicotine-zyn.com>,
<us-zyn-nicotine.com>, <zynpouchesofficial.com>, <lovezyn.shop>, <shopzyn.shop>, <storezyn.shop>,
<tuzyn.shop>, <zynbloom.shop>, <zynworld.shop>, <zynsphere.shop>, <zynmarket.shop>,
<zynmain.shop>, <zyn-official.shop>, and <zynwholesale.shop> is Chinese. On June 18, 2025, the
Complainants confirmed its request that English to be the language of the proceeding. The Respondents did
not submit any comment on the Complainants’ submission.
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 Respondents in Chinese
and English of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 1, 2025. In accordance with the
Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 21, 2025. The Respondents did not submit any
response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondents’ default on July 24, 2025.
The Center appointed Deanna Wong Wai Man as the sole panelist in this matter on August 11, 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 First Complainant, Swedish Match North Europe AB, and the Second Complainant, Pinkerton Tobacco
Co. LP, are part of the group of companies affiliated to Philips Morris International, Inc., a well-known
international tobacco company.
page 3
The First Complainant was originally founded in 1992 and in November 2022, the Complainants, together
with their affiliates, were acquired by and became part of the Philips Morris International, Inc. group of
companies. The First Complainant is specialized in the manufacturing, marketing, and sale of smoke-free
tobacco products, such as snus and nicotine pouches. One of the First Complainant’s products is the ZYN
nicotine pouch brand, first launched in the United States in 2016 and now available in around 40 markets
across the world. The First Complainant’s website is “
The First Complainant is the owner, amongst others, of the following ZYN trademark registrations:
International Registration No. 1421212 for ZYN (word) in class 34, registered on April 18, 2018, designating
several countries; International Registration No. 1456681 for ZYN (word/device) in class 34, registered on
December 27, 2018, designating Australia, Bahrain, Switzerland, Egypt, United Kingdom, Israel, Kenya,
Norway, Oman and Philippines.
The Second Complainant is an affiliate of the First Complainant in that it is a member of the same group of
companies as the First Complainant. The Second Complainant is the owner of the following ZYN trademark
registrations: United States Registration No. 5061008 for ZYN (word) in class 34, registered on October 11,
2016; and United States Registration No. 5925183 for FIND YOUR ZYN (word) in class 34, registered on
December 3, 2019.
For the sake of clarity and given the common grievances in this proceeding based on the aforementioned
registered trademarks owned by the First Complainant and by the Second Complainant, the Panel shall
hereafter jointly refer to both Complainants as “the Complainant”.
The disputed domain names were all registered between September 13, 2024 and February 18, 2025. Most
of the disputed domain names direct to inactive or error websites, the disputed domain names
<buyzynonline.com>, <zynpouches-club.com>, and <zynpouch-us.com> resolve to online shops which
allegedly sell and offer what are purported to be the Complainant’s ZYN nicotine products, and the disputed
domain name <priniczynonline.com> directs to an website which apparently offers third party electronic
products for sale.
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 names.
Notably, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain names are confusingly similar to its registered
trademarks, since the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s distinctive trademarks ZYN in
combination with various terms within various generic Top-Level Domains. The Complainant also contends
that the Respondents are not licensees of the Complainant, nor are the Respondents otherwise entitled or
authorized to use the Complainant's trademarks for any purpose. The Complainant further states that it has
not given the Respondents any permission to use the mark and that the Respondents are not commonly
known under the disputed domain names. The Complainant also argues that the Respondents are not
making a legitimate non-commercial or fair use of the disputed domain names in any way, and that even for
those disputed domain names where the Respondents purport to be reselling the Complainant’s products,
the Respondents do not comply with the applicable Oki Data criteria (Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc.,
WIPO Case No. D2001-0903, <okidataparts.com>) for good faith reselling of products. Instead, the
Complainant contends that the Respondents’ behavior shows a clear intent to obtain an unfair commercial
gain, with a view to misleadingly diverting consumers or to tarnish the trademarks owned by the
Complainant. Furthermore, the Complainant essentially argues that the Respondents have merely
registered the disputed domain names to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users
to their websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source,
sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the disputed domain names. Additionally, the Complainant
page 4
argues that the Respondents have engaged in a pattern of bad faith behavior as they were allegedly also
involved in a prior UDRP case with a similar factual constellation, namely Swedish Match North Europe AB,
Philip Morris International, Inc. v. xiang zheng, Alico Enterprise Pte. Ltd., xiang zheng, juxs jttkbdeitnx, WIPO
Case No. D2024-4487. The Complainant essentially argues that in these circumstances, the Respondents
have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name and the registration and use of the
disputed domain name are made in bad faith.
B. Respondent
The Respondents did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings
6.1 Preliminary Issue: Consolidation of Multiple Respondents
The amended Complaint was filed in relation to nominally different domain name registrants. The
Complainant alleges that the domain name registrants are the same entity or mere alter egos of each other,
or under common control. The Complainant requests the consolidation of the Complaint against the multiple
disputed domain name registrants pursuant to paragraph 10(e) of the Rules.
Paragraph 3(c) of the Rules states that a complaint may relate to more than one domain name, provided that
the domain names are registered by the same domain name holder.
In addressing the Complainant’s request, the Panel will consider whether (i) the disputed domain names or
corresponding websites are subject to common control; and (ii) the consolidation would be fair and equitable
to all Parties. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition
(“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 4.11.2.
As regards the question of common control, the Panel notes that the disputed domain names were
registered over a period of approximately five months, namely between September 13, 2024 and February
18, 2025, and that they share certain similarities in structure, in that each incorporates ZYN together with
various dictionary and/or descriptive terms.
However, the Panel notes that such slight similarity in registration pattern or naming structure, without
additional elements, is insufficient to establish common control. The record indicates that the disputed
domain names have been registered through different Registrars, under Registration Agreements in different
languages (some in English, others in Chinese), and that the Complainant has not demonstrated any
persuasive connection between the named registrants or their registration details, addresses etc.
The Panel further observes that the use of the disputed domain names is not uniform so as to show common
control: while a number resolve to inactive websites (which by itself cannot be considered as sufficient to
illustrate common control), some others purport to offer the Complainant’s products for sale (with differing
layouts and presentation), and yet others offer unrelated third-party products. Such divergent patterns of use
tend to indicate, on balance of probabilities, that the disputed domain names are under separate control,
rather than illustrating a unified or coordinated scheme. The Complainant’s evidence in support of
consolidation is, in the Panel’s view, insufficient to establish common control necessary for consolidation of
the cases.
The Complainant has not adduced concrete evidence demonstrating that the named registrants are aliases,
proxies, or otherwise under a single controlling entity. In particular, there is an absence of consistent links in
names, contact details, addresses, technical infrastructure links (such as common hosting or name servers),
or other objective indicia that the disputed domain names are managed by the same person or entity.
page 5
The Panel also considers the fairness aspect. Consolidation should not operate to prejudice the due process
rights of respondents. On the present record, in circumstances where there is no clear evidence of common
control, consolidation could risk unfairly binding distinct and potentially unrelated respondents into a single
proceeding without adequate justification.
In these circumstances, the Panel concludes that the requirements for consolidation have not been met. The
Panel therefore declines to order consolidation in this case and will proceed to determine the merits solely in
respect of those disputed domain names registered by the First Respondent (黄新华 (huangxinhua), 厦门嘉
浩伟业科技有限公司(xiamenjiahaoweiyekejiyouxiangonsi)), whom the Panel shall hereafter refer to as the
“Respondent.” The Panel also notes that the Complainant remains at liberty to file a new complaint in
respect of the excluded disputed domain names and that this Decision is without prejudice to any such
potential future complaint.
6.2 Discussion and Findings on the Merits
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. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.
The Panel finds the mark is recognizable within each of the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the
disputed domain names are confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview
3.0, section 1.7.
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 UDRP 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 names. 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 names such as those enumerated in the
Policy or otherwise.
Moreover, upon review of the facts and evidence, the Panel observes that all disputed domain names which
resolve to active websites direct to online shops allegedly offering what purport to be the Complainant’s ZYN
nicotine products, or to websites apparently offering third-party goods of other commercial origin. On the
record, there is no evidence that the Respondent has made any reasonable or demonstrable preparations to
page 6
use the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. In the Panel’s
view, the overall circumstances do not support any claim of legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Even if the
Respondent were claiming to resell the Complainant’s products, such use would not meet the requirements
set out in the Oki Data test (see Oki Data Americas, Inc. v. ASD, Inc., WIPO Case No. D2001-0903 and
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.8.1), as the Respondent is not an authorized reseller, has not accurately and
prominently disclosed its relationship with the Complainant, and appears to be offering unauthorized
products alongside competing goods. Rather, the evidence indicates that the Respondent’s primary
intention is to mislead and divert Internet users for commercial gain by exploiting the goodwill and reputation
of the Complainant’s ZYN mark, including through the unauthorized sale of purported ZYN products or
competing third-party goods. Such conduct falls squarely within the type of behavior not conferring rights or
legitimate interests, as also described in section 2.5 of the WIPO Overview 3.0.
As to the disputed domain names which direct to an inactive or error webpage, the Panel finds that holding a
domain name passively, without making any use of it, also does not confer any rights or legitimate interests
in the disputed domain names on the Respondent under the circumstances of this case (see in this regard
earlier UDRP decisions such as Bollore SE v. 赵竹飞 (Zhao Zhu Fei), WIPO Case No. D2020-0691 and
Vente-Privee.Com and Vente-Privee.com IP S.à.r.l. v. 崔郡 (jun cui), WIPO Case No. D2021-1685).
The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.
C. Registered and 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.
In the present case, the Panel notes that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain names, each
confusingly similar to the Complainant’s distinctive and extensively used ZYN trademarks, under which
products are marketed by the Complainant in numerous jurisdictions. The Complainant’s trademarks were
registered several years prior to the registration date of the disputed domain names. From these facts, the
Panel infers that the Respondent knew, or at the very least should have known, of the Complainant’s
trademark rights at the time of registration, which could have also easily been discovered by the Respondent
by a simple Internet or trademark search at that time. This inference is furthermore confirmed by the content
of websites to which several of the disputed domain names (see for instance <buyzynonline.com>) resolve,
which indeed seem to offer for sale purported ZYN products and thus provide direct evidence that the
Respondent was aware of, and targeted the Complainant and its ZYN marks when registering the disputed
domain names. In the Panel’s view, these circumstances constitute clear evidence of bad faith, and the
Panel therefore finds that the disputed domain names were registered in bad faith.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain
name was registered and used in bad faith, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a
respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.2.1.
In particular, the Complainant has provided evidence that the disputed domain names <buyzynonline.com>,
<zynpouches-club.com>, and <zynpouch-us.com> resolving to active websites direct to online shops
allegedly offering what purport to be the Complainant’s ZYN nicotine products, in some cases even using the
Complainant’s official product images and marketing materials, or to websites apparently offering third-party
goods of other commercial origin. The Panel finds that, in each such instance, the Respondent is
intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood
of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the
disputed domain names. Such conduct constitutes clear evidence of bad faith registration and use under
paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
The disputed domain name <priniczynonline.com> resolves a website offering electronic products for sale.
Considering the Complainant’s fame, and the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain names
page 7
<buyzynonline.com>, <zynpouches-club.com>, and <zynpouch-us.com>, the Panel considers that the
Respondent’s use is clearly for commercial gain, and the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract,
Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks as to the
source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. The registration and use of the disputed domain name
<priniczynonline.com> constitute bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
As to those of the disputed domain names which direct to an inactive or error webpage, the Panel refers to
the settled view of panels applying the Policy which have found that the non-use of a domain name
(including a blank or “coming soon” page) would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of
passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes
the strong reputation of the Complainant’s trademarks, and the composition of the disputed domain names,
and finds that in the circumstances of this case the current passive holding of these disputed domain names
does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.
As to the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent has engaged in a pattern of bad faith conduct,
referring to its alleged involvement in the prior UDRP case Swedish Match North Europe AB, Philip Morris
International, Inc. v. xiang zheng, Alico Enterprise Pte. Ltd., xiang zheng, juxs jttkbdeitnx, WIPO Case No.
D2024-4487, the Panel notes that the record does not contain sufficient evidence to establish that the
Respondent in the present case is indeed the same party as the respondent in that proceeding. In these
circumstances, the Panel is unable to make a finding on this point. Nevertheless, in light of the other
elements discussed above, the Panel finds there is sufficient evidence to conclude that the Respondent has
registered and is using the disputed domain names in bad faith.
Based on the available record, 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 names <buyzynonline.com>, <buyzynpouches.shop>, <nikzyngo.shop>,
<nikzyn.shop>, <nikzyns.shop>, <poucheszyn-us.shop>, <priniczyn.com>, <priniczynonline.com>,
<tobazyn.shop>, <tozyn.shop>, <us-buyzyn.com>, <uspoucheszyn.shop>, <us-zynpouches.com>,
<varyzyn.shop>, <zynbag.shop>, <zynbuy.shop>, <zyninshop.shop>, <zyninstore.shop>, <zynjuice.shop>,
<zynnicopouch.shop>, <zynnicotpouches.shop>, <zynnicpouches.shop>, <zynonlineca.com>,
<zynonline.shop>, <zynpouches-club.com>, <zynpouchesonline.shop>, <zynpouch-us.com>,
<zynpurestoe.com>, <zynrevolve.com>, <zynsgo.shop>, <zynsgoshop.shop>, <zyn-shop.shop>,
<zynshop.store>, <zynsmoks.shop>, <zynsonlin.shop>, <zynsshopping.com>, <zynsshop.shop>,
<zynss.shop>, <zynvelo.com>, <zynvelostore.com>, <zynvelo79.shop>, <zynzshop.shop>, and <zzyn.shop>
be transferred to the Complainant.
The Complaint is denied without prejudice as regards the disputed domain names <bzyn.shop>,
<zyn-authorization.com>, <crazy-zyn.shop>, <zyn-buy.com>, <zynicpouches.com>, <zyn-na.com>,
<zynsmokers.com>, <iszyn.shop>, <lovezyn.shop>, <shopzyn.shop>, <storezyn.shop>, <tuzyn.shop>,
<zynbloom.shop>, <zynmain.shop>, <zynmarket.shop>, <zynsphere.shop>, <zynworld.shop>,
<zyn-official.shop>, <zynpouchesofficial.com>, <zynwholesale.shop>, <us-zyn-nicotine.com>, and
<nicotine-zyn.com>.
/Deanna Wong Wai Man/
Deanna Wong Wai Man
Sole Panelist
Date: August 25, 2025
0
0
0