The Complainants are Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin of Clermont-Ferrand, France and, Michelin Recherche et Technique S.A. of Granges-Paccot, Switzerland ("Michelin"), represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Artemio Garza Hernandez / Artemio Garza of San Pedro Garza Garcia, Mexico. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar
The disputed domain names and are registered with Network Solutions, LLC (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on February 18, 2015. On February 18, 2015, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 18, 2015, 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(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on February 20, 2015. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was March 12, 2015. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on March 13, 2015.
The Center appointed Maninder Singh as the sole panelist in this matter on March 27, 2015. 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 Michelin claims to be a leading tyre company having its headquarters in Clermont-Ferrand, France. It manufactures and sells tyres for airplanes, automobiles, farm equipment, heavy duty trucks, motorcycles, bicycles, and the space shuttle. It also offers electronic mobility support services on "" and publishes travel guides, hotel and restaurant guides, maps and road atlases. Complainant Michelin claims to have a presence in more than 170 countries, have over 111,200 employees and operate 67 production plants in 17 different countries. Michelin is stated to be a subsidiary of Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin. The Michelin Group also claims to have acquired from the BFGoodrich corporation, an American tyre manufacturer, the trademark BFGOODRICH which currently belongs to Michelin. The Complainants claim Michelin North America is a USD 10.76 billion a year company operating 19 plants in 16 locations including Mexico. Michelin North America operates 19 plants including one in Queretaro, Mexico. It employs 710 employees in Mexico. The Complainants claim to own numerous MICHELIN and BFGOODRICH trademark registrations around the world and in particular in Mexico.
The Respondent has chosen not to submit any response to the contentions raised in the Complaint. In the absence of a Response, little is known about the Respondent.
The earliest of the disputed domain names was registered in 2014, many years after the Complainants developed rights in their marks. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant 1. Identical or Confusingly Similar:
- In order to show that the disputed domain names and are identical and/or confusingly similar to the Complainants' marks, the Complainants contend that the disputed domain names reproduce exactly the Complainants' trademarks MICHELIN and BFGOODRICH.
- The Complainants contend that incorporation of a well-known trademark in its entirety is sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a registered trademark.
- The Complainants also contend that the disputed domain name associates the Complainants' trademark MICHELIN with the generic term "de" and the geographical term "mexico". On the other hand, the disputed domain name includes the generic term "llantas" and the addition of generic terms to the well-known trademarks does not prevent the risk of confusion between the Complainants' trademarks and the disputed domain names.
- The Complainants contend that the adjunction of the geographical term "mexico" in is likely to reinforce confusion and Internet users may wrongly believe that this disputed domain name is related to a website developed by the Complainants for the Mexican market.
- The Complainants similarly contend that the term "llantas", which means tyres in Spanish, in , increases the likelihood of confusion with the Complainants' trademark BFGOODRICH since it corresponds to the Complainants' area of business. 2. Rights or Legitimate Interests:
- The Complainants contend that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainants in any way nor has it been authorized by the Complainants to use and register their trademarks, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said marks.
- The Complainants also contend that the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The registration of the MICHELIN and BFGOODRICH trademarks preceded the registration of the disputed domain names by years.
- The Complainants have also contended that the disputed domain names are so confusingly similar to the well-known trademarks MICHELIN and BFGOODRICH of the Complainants, that the Respondent cannot reasonably pretend it was intending to develop a legitimate activity through the disputed domain names.
- The Complainants further contend that the Respondent is neither commonly known by the names "Michelin" or "BFGoodrich".
- The Complainants have contended that the Respondent did not demonstrate use of the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Indeed, the disputed domain names resolve to inactive pages. Consequently, the Respondent fails to show any intention of noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
- The Complainants have also contended that the Respondent never answered the Complainants' letter despite several reminders. 3. Bad Faith Registration and Use
- The Complainants have contended that it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainants when it registered the disputed domain names since the Complainants and their numerous trademarks are well-known throughout the world, including in Mexico and thus, it is unlikely that the Respondent was not aware of the Complainants' proprietary rights over the trademarks. Therefore, it is impossible that the Respondent did not have these trademarks in mind while registering the disputed domain names.
- The Complainants contend that in light of the reputation of the Complainants' trademarks, the Respondent's reproduction of the trademarks MICHELIN and BFGOODRICH clearly proves that the Respondent was aware of the existence of the Complainants' trademarks.
- The Complainants also contend that a quick search for the MICHELIN and BFGOODRICH trademarks would have revealed to the Respondent the existence of the Complainants and their trademarks. The Respondent's failure to do so is a contributory factor to its bad faith.
- The Complainants have further contended that in this day and age of the Internet and advancement in information technology, the reputation of brands and trademarks transcend national borders. Taking into account the worldwide reputation of the Complainants and their trademarks, as well as the high level of notoriety of the Complainants, it is hard to believe that the Respondent was unaware of the existence of the Complainants and their trademarks at the time of registration of the disputed domain names.
- The Complainants have also contended that it is hard to believe that the Respondent could have selected the disputed domain names without knowing the Complainants' trademarks since it registered two domain names both reproducing exactly the Complainants' trademarks MICHELIN and BFGOODRICH. Also, the fact that the disputed domain name is comprised of the generic term "llantas" meaning "tyres" proves that the Respondent knew about the Complainants and the Complainants' field of activity. This provides clear evidence of the bad faith registration of the disputed domain name.
- The Complainants contend that the disputed domain names resolve to inactive pages. Nevertheless, this state of inactivity does not mean that the disputed domain names are used in good faith. B. Respondent
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
- The Complainants have furnished evidence of their rights in the trademarks through their trademark registrations MICHELIN and BFGOODRICH. The Panel has considered the documents submitted by the Complainants in support of their claim that the Complainants have various registrations for the trademarks MICHELIN and BFGOODRICH. The Panel observes that there does not appear to be any doubt that the Complainants are the owner of the trademarks MICHELIN and BFGOODRICH.
- The Panel has no doubt that the registration of the disputed domain names and by reproduction of the Complainant's trademarks MICHELIN and BFGOODRICH has been done by the Respondent to create a likelihood of confusion as to the source, connection, sponsorship, affiliation, and endorsement of the Respondent's affiliated websites.
- It is the view of the Panel that the addition of the generic term "de" and the geographical term "mexico" in the disputed domain name and addition of the generic term "llantas" in the disputed domain name does not make any difference at all. The disputed domain names remain confusingly similar to the trademarks of the Complainants.
- The Panel finds it useful to refer, in this regard, to certain UDRP decisions. In Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin and Michelin Recherche et Technique S.A. v. Eijiobara Obara,WIPO Case No. D2012-0047, it was held that the addition of generic terms to a well-known trademark does not prevent the risk of confusion between a complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name.
- Similarly, in the cases of L'Oréal, Laboratoire Garnier & Compagnie v. Australian Internet Investments Pty Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2008-1640; L'Oréal v. Liao Quanyong,WIPO Case No. D2007-1552; Accor v. Serdar Ceylan,WIPO Case No.D2011-2231; and LeSportsac Inc. v. Zhao Zhao,WIPO Case No. D2012-2505, it was held that a domain name which consists of a trademark combined with a geographical term is still confusing and does not provide sufficient distinction from a complainant or its marks
- The Panel observes that the extension ".com" is typically not taken into consideration when examining the identity or similarity between a complainant's trademarks and a disputed domain name. Reliance in this regard has been placed on Accor v. Noldc Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2005-0016; L'Oréal v Tina Smith,WIPO Case No. 2013-0820; Titoni AG v Runxin Wang,WIPO Case No. D2008-0820; and Alstom v. Itete Peru S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2009-0877, holding that mere adjunction of a generic Top Level Domain ("gTLD") such as ".com" is irrelevant as it is well established that the gTLD is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity.
The Complainants have therefore succeeded in establishing the first element in paragraph 4(a) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
- The Panel observes that the Respondent is not commonly known by the names "Michelin" or "BFGoodrich," is in no way affiliated with the Complainants nor has it been authorized by the Complainants to use and register their trademarks, or to seek registration of any domain names incorporating said marks. Furthermore, the Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain names. The Panel has further observed that registration of the MICHELIN and BFGOODRICH trademarks preceded the registration of the disputed domain names. In this regard, attention has been drawn to the UDRP decisions in LEGO Juris A/S v. DomainPark Ltd, David Smith, A Domain Privacy, Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host master,WIPO Case No. D2010-0138, and L'Oréal and Laboratoire Garnier Et Compagnie v. Mitesh Soma,WIPO Case No. D2011-0860, holding that in the absence of any license or permission from the complainant to use a widely-known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could reasonably be claimed.
- The Panel has also observed that the Respondent did not demonstrate use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain names in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Indeed, the disputed domain names resolve to inactive pages. Consequently, the Respondent fails to show any intention of noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain names.
- The Panel has taken note of the fact that the Respondent never answered the Complainants' letter despite several reminders. Reliance in this regard has been placed on UDRP decisions in AREVA v. St James Robyn,WIPO Case No. D2010-1017 and Nordstrom, Inc. and NIHC, Inc. v. Inkyu Kim,WIPO Case No. D2003-0269, holding that when respondents do not avail themselves of their rights to respond to a complainant, it can be assumed that the respondents have no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
- In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the Panel has no difficulty in accepting that the Respondent has nothing to prove its bona fide use of the disputed domain names as it has failed to submit any response to the contentions made by the Complainants.
The Respondent therefore has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
- The Panel agrees with the Complainants' contention that it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainants when it registered the disputed domain names since the Complainants and their numerous trademarks are well-known throughout the world, including in Mexico. The Panel also agrees with the Complainants' contention that the Respondent must have had in mind these trademarks while registering the disputed domain names.
- The Panel finds merit in the Complainants' contention that the Respondent's reproduction of the trademarks MICHELIN and BFGOODRICH itself clearly proves that the Respondent was aware of the existence of the Complainants' trademarks. Attention in this regard has been drawn to the earlier UDRP decisions LEGO Juris A/S v. Reiner Stotte,WIPO Case No. D2010-0494 and Caixa D'Estalvis I Pensions de Barcelona ("La Caixa") v. Eric Adam,WIPO Case No. D2006-0464 wherein it has been held that knowledge of a corresponding mark at the time of the domain name's registration suggests bad faith.
- The Panel also finds merit in the Complainants' contention that it is hard to believe that the Respondent could have selected the disputed domain names without knowing of the Complainants' trademarks since it registered two domain names both reproducing exactly the Complainants' trademarks MICHELIN and BFGOODRICH. The Panel agrees with the Complainants that the fact that the disputed domain name is comprised of the generic term "llantas" meaning "tyres" proves that the Respondent knew about the Complainants and the Complainants' field of activity. This provides clear evidence of the bad faith registration of the disputed domain names.
- The Panel, in this regard, finds it useful to refer to and rely upon the UDRP decision in Bouygues v. Chengzhang, Lu Ciagao,WIPO Case No. D2007-1325 holding that "it would have been pertinent for Respondent to provide an explanation of its choice in the disputed domain name, failing which the Panel draws the conclusion that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith with intent to create an impression of an association with Complainant and its products". However, the Respondent in this case has neither tried to defend its rights nor has stated any arguments to justify the registration of the disputed domain names in response to the Complainants' cease-and-desist letter or the Complaint.
- The Panel further agrees with the Complainants' contention that bad faith can be found where the Respondent "knew or should have known" of the Complainant's trademark rights and, nevertheless registered the disputed domain names in which it had no rights or legitimate interests. Reliance in this regard is placed on the UDRP decision in Accor v. Kristen Hoerl,WIPO Case No. D2007-1722.
- The Panel has observed that the disputed domain names resolve to inactive pages. The Panel agrees with the Complainants' contention that this state of inactivity does not mean that the disputed domain names are used in good faith.
- The Panel further agrees with the reliance placed by the Complainants on the earlier UDRP decision in Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003 wherein it was held that the passive holding of a domain name can satisfy the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii), and that in such cases the panel must give close attention to all the circumstances of the respondent's behavior.
- The Panel, therefore, finds that the disputed domain names were registered and are being used in bad faith by the Respondent. 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 names and be transferred to the Complainants.
Maninder Singh
Sole Panelist
Date: April 10, 2014
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy