The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Domain Admin / Whois Privacy Corp., Bahamas.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 22, 2021. On July 22, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 23, 2021, 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 August 18, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was September 7, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 20, 2021.
The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on September 22, 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 BackgroundThe Complainant is a French company, established in 1889, with over 114,000 employees in 1701countries, and operates 69 manufacturing facilities. Its core business is in tires, sold under its MICHELIN trademark. The Complainant has also, since 1920, managed a magazine, under the name GUIDE MICHELIN (or MICHELIN GUIDE in English), recommending hotels, restaurants etc., for travelers.
Details of extensive registrations of its trademark MICHELIN internationally have been supplied to the Panel by the Complainant. These include European Union trademark registration number 004836359, registered on March 13, 2008, United States of America trademark registration number 3684424, registered on September 15, 2009, and International Registration number 771031, registered on June 11, 2001.
The disputed domain name was registered on January 8, 2021, and currently resolves to a website which is a page, in French, dealing with real estate and social home loans.
The Complainant tried to amicably resolve the dispute by requesting the Respondent to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant free of charge, but this did not come to fruition.
“Immobilier” is a French language word, which translates into English as “real estate”.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MICHELIN trademark, containing its MICHELIN trademark in its entirety, followed by the generic word “immobilier”.
The Complainant alleges that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in particular that, so far as the Complainant is aware, the Respondent is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to use its MICHELIN trademark in connection with registration of a domain name, or otherwise.
The Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and is being used in bad faith.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsParagraph 4(a) of the Policy lists three elements that the Complainant must prove to merit a finding that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant:
(i) the disputed 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 disputed domain name; and
(iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Panel has been made aware that the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark has been recognized as well-known in a number of prior decisions under the UDRP, including the relatively recent case of Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v World Industrial, LNQ, WIPO Case No. D2019-0553. The Panel in this case also recognizes the Complainant’s MICHELIN to be well-known.
It is well established in prior decisions under the UDRP, with which the Panel agrees, that a generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) is irrelevant when comparing a trademark with a disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel considers the gTLD “.net” to be irrelevant in the circumstances of the present case, and so finds.
The Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name. The added hyphen between the Complainant’s trademark and the word “immobilier” are generic in nature, do not distract from the primacy of the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark in the disputed domain name, and do not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, and the Panel so finds.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
B. Rights or Legitimate InterestsIt is the consensus view of UDRP panels, with which the Panel agrees, that a prima facie case advanced by the complainant will generally be sufficient for the complainant to be deemed to have satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, provided the respondent does not come forward with evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name and the complainant has presented a sufficient prima facie case to succeed under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
The Panel considers the submissions put forward by the Complainant, including the Respondent not being generally known by the disputed domain name and the Complainant never granting the Respondent permission to use its MICHELIN trademark, as sufficient to be regarded as a prima facie case, and the Respondent did not take the opportunity to advance any claim of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name to rebut this prima facie case.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
C. Registered and Used in Bad FaithThe Panel is of the view that the finding that a respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name can lead, in appropriate circumstances, to a finding of registration of a disputed domain name in bad faith. The circumstances of the present case, in which the Panel regards it as self-evident that the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark was deliberately appropriated in the disputed domain name, are such that the Panel concludes that a finding of registration in bad faith is justified, and so finds.
The success of the Guide Michelin in providing recommendations as to hotels and restaurants to travelers or tourists is such that anyone familiar with the Guide Michelin would be likely to be unsurprised by the notion that the Complainant had extended its recommendation service to real estate, which can often be available for either rent or sale.
The Panel is of the opinion that anyone connecting to the website operated under the disputed domain name would be likely to assume that it was connected to or authorized by the Complainant, and to be, consequently deceived, to the detriment of the Complainant. Further, it is well-established in prior decisions under the Policy, that the use of a website under a disputed domain name in connection with a website impersonating a complainant and appearing to provide the goods and services offered by the complainant, or similar goods and services, constitutes use of the disputed domain name in bad faith. This, in the Panel’s opinion, is sufficient to justify a finding of use in bad faith, and the Panel so finds.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
7. DecisionFor 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,
George R. F. Souter
Sole Panelist
Date: October 6, 2021