Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin of Clermont-Ferrand, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
Respondent is Wu Shumei of Weehawken, Singapore. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name is registered with FastDomain, Inc. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on July 13, 2018. On July 13, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 16, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 19, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 8, 2018. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent's default on August 9, 2018.
The Center appointed Michael A. Albert as the sole panelist in this matter on August 15, 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
Complainant, Michelin is a well-known company that manufactures and markets tires for vehicles, including airplanes, automobiles, bicycles/motorcycles, earthmovers, farm equipment and trucks. It also offers electronic mobility support services on "" and publishes travel guides, hotel and restaurant guides, maps and road atlases. Headquartered in Clermont-Ferrand, France, Michelin is present in more than 170 countries, has 112,300 employees and operates 68 production plants in 17 different countries.
In 1920, Complainant launched its Brand MICHELIN Guide to help motorists plan their trips, thereby boosting car sales and in turn, tire purchases. The MICHELIN Guides have since become best-sellers. The guide now rates over 30,000 establishments in over 30 territories across three continents, and more than 30 million MICHELIN Guides have been sold worldwide.
Complainant owns numerous MICHELIN trademark registrations around the world, in particular:
- International Trademark MICHELIN No. 348615, registered on July 24, 1968, duly renewed and covering goods in classes 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17 and 20;
- International Trademark MICHELIN No. 816915, registered on August 27, 2003, duly renewed and covering goods in classes 35, 37, 39 and 42; and
- International Trademark MICHELIN No. 771031, registered on June 11, 2001, duly renewed and covering goods in classes 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 39 and 42.
In addition, Complainant and affiliates operate, among others, the following domain names:
- registered on December 1st, 1993; and
- registered on January 27, 1999.
The website at the disputed domain name resolves to a webpage displaying pay-per-click links. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant
Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to its MICHELIN mark. The disputed domain name incorporates the MICHELIN mark in its entirety with the addition of the generic terms "guide" and "centieme" (meaning "hundredth" in French). The addition of the terms "guide" and "centieme" before and after MICHELIN in the disputed domain name are insufficient to alleviate the likelihood of confusion between Complainant's mark and the disputed domain name. On the contrary, Complainant contends that the generic terms heighten the likelihood of confusion.
Complainant contends that Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interest in the disputed domain name. Respondent is not affiliated with Complainant in any way nor has Respondent been authorized by Complainant to use and register its trademark, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating its mark.
Complainant further contends that Respondent had actual knowledge of Complainant's famous MICHELIN mark, as evidenced by Respondent's use of the mark in the disputed domain name. Respondent uses the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a webpage displaying pay-per-click links that are likely to generate revenues, which is evidence of bad faith. Moreover, Respondent did not respond to Complainant's cease-and-desist letter. B. Respondent
Respondent did not reply to Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar
Respondent's disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's MICHELIN mark. It incorporates Complainant's well-known mark in full, adding only the generic terms "guide" and "centieme." In previous UDRP decisions, Panels held that incorporating a trademark in its entirety may be sufficient to establish that a domain name is identical or confusingly similar to Complainant's registered mark (see L'Oréal, Lancôme Parfums et Beauté & Cie v. Jack Yang,WIPO Case No. D2011-1627; Rapidshare AG, Christian Schmid v. InvisibleR, Domain Admin, WIPO Case No. D2010-1059 and The Stanley Works and Stanley Logistics, Inc. v. Camp Creek Co., Inc., WIPO Case No. D2000-0113). Also, adding a generic and descriptive term to Complainant's mark does not eliminate the confusing similarity between a trademark and a domain name (see Eurodrive Services and Distribution N.V v. Transure Enterprise Ltd, Host Master and A Domain Privacy,WIPO Case No. D2012-1453 and Swarovski Aktiengesellschaft v. Luo Li,WIPO Case No. D2012-1604).
Finally, the gTLD ".com" is not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or confusing similarity between Complainant's trademark and the disputed domain name (Accor v. Noldc Inc., WIPO Case No. D2005-0016). The mere adjunction of a gTLD is irrelevant as it is well established that the generic Top-Level Domain is insufficient to avoid a finding of confusing similarity (see 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).
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests
Complainant's rights in its MICHELIN mark are clearly established by its registration and continued use. Complainant has not authorized, licensed, or consented to Respondent's registration and use of a domain name incorporating Complainant's MICHELIN mark, or any confusingly similar variation thereof. In addition, Complainant registered the MICHELIN mark at least 50 years prior to Respondent's registration of the disputed domain name.
Respondent did not respond to the Complaint or Complainant's cease-and-desist letter. Failure to respond to the Complaint, coupled with Complainant's prima facie case, are indicative that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
The Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith
The Panel finds it highly implausible that Respondent registered the disputed domain name unaware of Complainant's rights and reputation. Complainant's MICHELIN mark is well-known worldwide. Further, a simple trademark search would have revealed to Respondent the existence of Complainant and its trademark. Bad faith can be found where Respondent knew or should have known of Complainant's trademark rights and, nevertheless registered a domain name in which it had no rights or legitimate interest (see Research In Motion Limited v. Privacy Locked LLC/Nat Collicot,WIPO Case No. D2009-0320 and The Gap, Inc. v. Deng Youqian, WIPO Case No. D2009-0113).
Respondent uses the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a webpage displaying pay-per-click links which are likely to generate revenues. Intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to a competing website, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant's mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of Respondent's website or other location, is evidence of bad faith.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that Complainant has satisfied 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 be transferred to Complainant.
Michael A. Albert
Sole Panelist
Date: August 24, 2018
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy