WIPO Domain Name Decision D2018-1501 for michelin.travel
WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin, Manufacture Française des Pneumatiques Michelin Case No. D2018-1501 1. The Parties
The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin of Clermont-Ferrand, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Compagnie Generale des Etablissements Michelin, Manufacture Française des Pneumatiques Michelin of Clermont-Ferrand, France. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with N, Inc. (N LLC) (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 5, 2018. On July 5, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 5, 2018, 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 July 13, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 2, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 7, 2018.
The Center appointed Isabelle Leroux as the sole panelist in this matter on August 17, 2018. 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 French company based in Clermont-Ferrand, manufacturing and distributing tires, providing services and solutions for automobile industry in 170 countries all over the world.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations, in particular:
International trademark MICHELIN, registered under No. 348615 on July 24, 1968, covering goods in classes 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, and 20;
European Union trade mark MICHELIN, registered under No. 001791243 on October 24, 2001, designating notably goods in the classes 6, 7, 12, 17, and 28 (together, the “Marks”).
The Complainant owns also the domain name , registered on December 1, 1993.
The Complainant also offers for decades publications relating to restaurant and hotel guides and maps, notably the MICHELIN Guide, available in several countries, including France, and digital travel assistance products and services in Europe through its subsidiary “ViaMichelin”.
The disputed domain name was registered on March 1, 2018, and used to resolve to a website entitled “Michelin Guide – the official website”.
The disputed domain name is now inactive after a formal notification sent by the Complainant to the registrar and the webhost of the disputed domain name. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant
(i) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name reproduces the Marks in which the Complainant has rights and creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Marks since the addition of the top level domain “.travel” should be disregarded. Therefore, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Marks.
(ii) The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant submits that the Respondent was not granted any right or license to use the name “Michelin”.
In addition, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name was initially redirected towards the Complainant’s official website “www.guide.” entitled “Michelin Guide”, therefore the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The fact that the Respondent never answered to the Complainant’s letter despite reminders is another factor analyzed by the Complainant as an assumption of the lack of legitimate interests.
(iii) The Complainant also contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and states that given the international reputation of the Complainant and its Marks, the Respondent knew or should have known the existence of the Complainant’s rights, and that the Respondent is likely to have registered the disputed domain name for the purpose to prevent the Complainant from using its Marks in a corresponding domain name.
Moreover, the Complainant argues that the Complainant is a victim of “impersonation” whose identity, namely its name and address, was used by the Respondent for the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that the redirection towards the Co