The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Privacy service provided by Withheld for Privacy ehf, Iceland / John Paul, Germany. 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 12, 2021. On April 12, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Disputed Domain name. On April 12, 2021, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Disputed Domain Name which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on April 20, 2021 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on April 22, 2021. 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on April 23, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 13, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 17, 2021. The Center appointed Peter Wild as the sole panelist in this matter on May 20, 2021. 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 leading, worldwide active tire company, going back to 1889, with sales in 171 countries and factories in 69 countries. It is also editor of the well-known travel and restaurant guides Guide Michelin and runs a digital service for travelers under the brand ViaMichelin. The Complainant is the owner of a wide portfolio of trademarks, amongst others, of the trademark MICHELIN registered under European Union Trademark 013558366 on April 17, 2015 and International Trademark No. 771031, registered on June 11, 2001. The Complainant tried to find a solution with the Respondent, before filing this Complaint, without reaction from the Respondent. The Disputed Domain Name was registered on February 24, 2021 and at the time of filing, the Disputed Domain Name was not being used in connection with active webpages. Previously, it directed to a website with advertising links related to Complainant's business and competitors. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant asserts to be the world’s leading provider of tires for automobiles, actively promoting and using its MICHELIN trademark throughout the world. The Disputed Domain Name is, according to the Complainant, confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, creating a likelihood of confusion given the exact reproduction of its trademark, not adding any distinctiveness thereto. Moreover, the Complainant claims that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. The Respondent is not licensee of the Complainant, nor has he been otherwise allowed by the Complainant to make any use of the MICHELIN trademark. There is evidence that the Disputed Domain Name has pointed to a website which displayed links to businesses in the field of Complainant’s activities, and also to Complainant’s competitors. According to the Complainant, there were email servers configured on the Disputed Domain Name, creating a basis for confusingly similar email addresses to be used in phishing attacks or similar. According to the Complainant, the Respondent has not used the Disputed Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services in accordance with paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. The Complainant also claims that the Respondent is presently passively holding the Disputed Domain Name and cannot credibly claim to be commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name, or a name corresponding to the Disputed Domain Name. As to the registration of the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark rights at the time of the registration of the Disputed Domain Name considering that it has acquired considerable goodwill and renown worldwide. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has established its rights in the MICHELIN trademark. The Panel sees that the Disputed Domain Name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark in its entirety. The addition of the Top-Level Domain (“TLD”) “.icu” does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity under the Policy as the MICHELIN mark remains clearly the only recognizable element in the Disputed Domain Name. See L’Oréal v. Tina Smith,WIPO Case No. 2013-0820 and Alstom v. Itete Peru S.A.,WIPO Case No. D2009-0877. The Panel concludes that the Disputed Domain Name is identical to the Complainant’s established trademark. The first element of the Policy has therefore been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests The Complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, see Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd.,WIPO Case No. D2003-0455. Once such prima facie case is made, the Respondent carries the burden of demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Name. If the Respondent fails to do so, the Complainant is deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. There is no reason to believe that the Respondent’s name somehow corresponds with the Disputed Domain Name and the Respondent does not appear to have any trademark rights associated with the term “Michelin”. See VUR Village Trading No. 1 Limited t/a Village Hotels v. Carolina Rodrigues, Fundacion Comercio Electronico,WIPO Case No. D2019-1596. The Respondent is not identified in the WhoIs database as “michelin”. Previous UDRP panels have held that a respondent was not commonly known by a disputed domain name, for example, if not even the WhoIs information was similar to the disputed domain name. There is no evidence in the case file showing that the Respondent may be commonly known as “michelin”. The Panel therefore finds under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy that the Respondent is not commonly known by the Disputed Domain Name. According to the Complainant, the Respondent is not affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant in any way to use the trademark and there is no other plausible reason for registration of the Disputed Domain Name than to take advantage of the goodwill and reputation associated with the trademark MICHELIN. The Respondent filed the Disputed Domain Name under a privacy shield and did not file any claims or evidence which would support his rights, both of which has been interpreted as an indication of lack of legitimate rights by earlier panels, see AREVA v. St. James Robyn Limoges,WIPO Case No. D2010-1017; Nordstrom, Inc. and NIHC, Inc. v. Inkyu Kim,WIPO Case No. D2003-0269. Based on these facts, the Panel holds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Disputed Domain Name. Therefore the Panel decides that the second condition of the Policy is met. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN has been found to be well-known by previous UDRP panels, see for example, Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Fan Jian Xia,WIPO Case No. D2018-0126. Given the distinctiveness of the Complainant’s trademark and reputation at the time of the registration of the Disputed Domain Name, it is reasonable to infer that the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trademarks, constituting opportunistic bad faith. Also in light of the exact same use of the term “michelin”, the Panel finds it hard to see any other explanation than the Respondent knew the Complainant’s well-known trademark, especially as the website under the Disputed Domain Name at least at one point showed links to a competitor of the Complainant and to other industry related offers. See Ferrari S.p.A. v. American Entertainment Group, Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2004-0673 and Revlon Consumer Products Corporation v. Terry Baumer,WIPO Case No. D2011-1051. The fact that the Respondent used a privacy shield for registration of the Disputed Domain Name and did not file any explanation how he chose this Disputed Domain Name in good faith are further elements of bad faith as found by earlier panels, see BOUYGUES v. Chengzhang, Lu Ciagao,WIPO Case No. D2007-1325), (Schering Corporation v. Name Redacted,WIPO Case No. D2012-0729 and TTT Moneycorp Limited. v. Diverse Communications,WIPO Case No. D2001-0725. The Respondent has not shown to own any trademark or any similar marks or names. The Respondent’s lack of rights in the Disputed Domain Name at issue is a further indication of bad faith in registering and using it. Where a domain name is so obviously connected to a particular product or service and the registrant is found to have no connection to that product or service, opportunistic bad faith is established. See Molmed S.p.A. v. Prof. Asif Ahmed,WIPO Case No. D2001-0177. Earlier panels have decided that in the absence of any permission by a complainant to use a widely known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the domain name could reasonably be claimed, see Alstom, Bouygues v. Webmaster,WIPO Case No. D2008-0281; Guerlain S.A. v. Peikang,WIPO Case No. D2000-0055. Furthermore, the Disputed Domain Name appears to have been used to set up email servers which may have been used to point to fraudulent phishing websites. The fact that the Disputed Domain Name does not currently resolve to an active website does not prevent a finding of bad faith in these circumstances. For these reasons, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has registered and is using the Disputed Domain Name in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(b)(iv) 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 Peter Wild
Sole Panelist
Date: June 3, 2021
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy