The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Mark Owen, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar
The disputed domain name The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 2, 2020. On April 3, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On April 4, 2020, 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 April 23, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 13, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 14, 2020. The Center appointed Ian Lowe as the sole panelist in this matter on May 21, 2020. 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 well-known international tire company based in France. It has traded under the MICHELIN trademark for over 130 years. The Complainant is the proprietor of numerous registered trademarks comprising “michelin”, including International Trademark number 348615 MICHELIN registered on July 24, 1968 and European Union trademark number 013558366 registered on April 17, 2015. Its United States subsidiary Michelin North America, Inc. is the proprietor of United States trademarks including number 4126565 MICHELIN registered on April 10, 2012. The Complainant also operates a number of websites including that at “www.michelin.com”. The Domain Name was registered on November 28, 2019. It does not resolve to an active website. The Respondent did not reply to a cease and desist letter sent on behalf of the Complainant in November 2019. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to its MICHELIN trademark (the “Mark”), that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name, and that the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name in bad faith within the meaning of the Policy. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings For this Complaint to succeed in relation to the Domain Name the Complainant must prove that: (i) the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and (ii) the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and (iii) the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has uncontested rights in the Mark, both by virtue of its several trademark registrations and as a result of the substantial goodwill and reputation acquired through its widespread use of the Mark over some 130 years. Ignoring the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”, the Domain Name differs from the Mark only by the addition of a hyphen and the letters “us”. In the view of the Panel, the addition of this geographical indication does not detract from the confusing similarity between the Mark and the Domain Name. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant has made out a strong prima facie case that the Respondent could have no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. The Respondent has not used the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, but rather has apparently made no active use of it. Since the Domain Name is virtually identical to the Complainant’s well-known name and the Mark, the Panel cannot conceive of any legitimate use to which the Respondent could put the Domain Name. Furthermore, the Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the Domain Name, and has not made any legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name. The Respondent has chosen not to respond to the Complaint or to take any steps to counter the prima facie case established by the Complainant. In the circumstances, the Panel finds that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Although the Respondent has apparently made no active use of the Domain Name, section 3.3 of the WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”) notes that, from the inception of the UDRP, panelists have found that the non-use of a domain name (including a blank or “coming soon” page) does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. It depends on the facts of the case, and relevant factors include: the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the complainant’s mark; the failure of the respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use; and the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain name may be put. In this case, as noted above, the Panel considers that it is not possible to conceive of any good faith use to which the Domain Name could be put and that all of the cited factors support a finding of bad faith registration and use. The overwhelming inference is that the Respondent registered the Domain Name with a view to attracting Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. 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 Name Ian Lowe
Sole Panelist
Date: June 2, 2020
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy