The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Unknown Unknown, China.
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 6, 2021. On October 6, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 7, 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 October 8, 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 October 13, 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 October 14, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was November 3, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 4, 2021.
The Center appointed William R. Towns as the sole panelist in this matter on November 11, 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 manufacturing company founded in 1889, and widely known for its manufacture and sale of automotive tires. The Complainant also has been recognized for its Michelin Guides, which provide travel maps, hotel and restaurant information, as well as other related information. The Complainant is the owner of trademark registrations for its MICHELIN mark in various jurisdictions, including the following:
- International Trademark Reg. No. 771031 registered on June 11, 2001 (designating China, Iceland, Norway, Switzerland, and Russian Federation); and
- International Trademark Reg. No. 574577 registered on May 6, 1991 (designating China, Austria, Russian Federation, and Spain).
The Complainant also has registered domain names reflecting its MICHELIN mark, including
A considerable number of panels under the UDRP have found the Complainant’s MICHELIN mark to be a well-known or famous mark. See., e.g., Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. World Industrial, LNQ,WIPO Case No. D2019-0553; Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Kanoksak Puangkham,WIPO Case No. D2018-2331; and Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. WhoisGuard, Inc., WhoisGuard Protected / Saad Zaeem, Caramel Tech Studios,WIPO Case No. D2017-0234.
The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 27, 2020, according to the Registrar’s WhoIs records. The Respondent subsequently pointed the disputed domain name to a website containing sexually oriented adult content and links in Chinese to online gambling. The Complainant on August 24, 2021, issued a cease and desist letter to the Registrar. As of August 27, 2021, the disputed domain name resolved to an error page. Shortly thereafter, however, the disputed domain name was redirected again to the website featuring sexually oriented adult content and advertisements for online gambling.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant submits that the disputed domain name
The Complaint remarks that the Respondent’s inclusion in the disputed domain name of the letters “o” and “k” following “michelin” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. The Complainant further submits that by registering the disputed domain name the Respondent has sought to create a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s MICHELIN mark.
The Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant avers that the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant and has not in any manner been authorized to register a domain name incorporating or reflecting the Complainant’s MICHELIN mark.
The Complainant further represents that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the disputed domain name and cannot claim prior rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, emphasizing that the registration of the MICHELIN mark precedes the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name by many years. The Complainant maintains that the Respondent prior to any notice of this dispute has neither used nor made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Complainant submits that the domain name was registered and is being used by the Respondent in bad faith. According to the Complainant, bad faith can be found where the Respondent knew of or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark rights when registering the disputed domain name. The Complainant considers it implausible that the Respondent would have been unaware of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name, and reiterates that the Complaint is well-known throughout the world as well as in China, where the Respondent is located.
The Complainant maintains that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to direct Internet users to a Chinese language webpage displaying pornographic content and links to online gambling. The Complainant submits that the Respondent’s primary intent when registering the disputed domain name was to capitalize or otherwise take advantage of the Complainant’s trademark rights by creating initial interest confusion. According to the Complainant, the Respondent ultimately is seeking to capture Internet users’ credentials. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent probably has engaged in a phishing scheme with the intent of stealing valuable information such as credit card information.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and Findings A. Scope of the PolicyThe Policy is addressed to resolving disputes concerning allegations of abusive domain name registration and use. Milwaukee Electric Tool Corporation v. Bay Verte Machinery, Inc. d/b/a The Power Tool Store,WIPO Case No. D2002-0774. Accordingly, the jurisdiction of this Panel is limited to providing a remedy in cases of “the abusive registration of domain names”, also known as “cybersquatting”. Weber-Stephen Products Co. v. Armitage Hardware,WIPO Case No. D2000-0187. See Final Report of the First WIPO Internet Domain Name Process, April 30, 1999, paragraphs 169-177. The term “cybersquatting” is most frequently used to describe the deliberate, bad faith abusive registration of a domain name in violation of rights in trademarks or service marks. Id. at paragraph 170. Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that a panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that the complainant prove each of the following three elements to obtain a decision that a domain name should be either cancelled or transferred:
(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 with respect to the domain name; and
(iii) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
Cancellation or transfer of the domain name is the sole remedy provided to the complainant under the Policy, as set forth in paragraph 4(i).
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets forth four situations under which the registration and use of a domain name is deemed to be in bad faith, but does not limit a finding of bad faith to only these situations.
Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy in turn identifies three means through which a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. Although the complainant bears the ultimate burden of establishing all three elements of paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, UDRP panels have recognized that this could result in the often impossible task of proving a negative, requiring information that is primarily, if not exclusively, within the knowledge of the respondent. Thus, the view is that the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of a right or legitimate interest in the domain name, once the complainant has made a prima facie showing. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1. See, e.g., Document Technologies, Inc. v. International Electronic Communications Inc.,WIPO Case No. D2000-0270.
B. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MICHELIN mark, in which the Complainant has established rights through registration and use. In considering identity and confusing similarity, the first element of the Policy serves essentially as a standing requirement.1 The threshold inquiry under the first element of the Policy involves a relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name.
The Complainant’s MICHELIN mark is clearly recognizable in the disputed domain name.2 The Respondent’s inclusion of the letters “’o” and “k” (i.e., “ok”) following “michelin” in the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. See, e.g., BPCE v. WhoisGuard Protected, WhoisGuard, Inc. / Fransis Coarno, Danstic,WIPO Case No. D2020-0967 (finding
Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
C. Rights or Legitimate InterestsAs noted above, once the complainant makes a prima facie showing under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(c) shifts the burden of production to the respondent to come forward with evidence of rights or legitimate interests in a domain name. The Panel is persuaded from the record of this case that a prima facie showing under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy has been made. It is undisputed that the Respondent has not been authorized to use the Complainant’s MICHELIN mark. The Respondent notwithstanding has registered a domain name appropriating in its entirety the Complainant’s well-known MICHELIN mark. The Respondent by all appearances is using the disputed domain name to create Internet user confusion, providing links to online gambling services that potentially may be used to capture Internet users’ credentials.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, a respondent may establish rights or legitimate interests in a domain name by demonstrating any of the following:
(i) before any notice to it of the dispute, the respondent’s use of, or demonstrable preparations to use, the domain name or a name corresponding to the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services; or
(ii) the respondent has been commonly known by the domain name, even if it has acquired no trademark or service mark rights; or
(iii) the respondent is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the domain name, without intent for commercial gain to misleadingly divert consumers or to tarnish the trademark or service mark at issue.
The Respondent has not submitted a response to the Complaint, in the absence of which the Panel may accept all reasonable inferences and allegations in the Complaint as true. See Talk City, Inc. v. Michael Robertson,WIPO Case No. D2000-0009. The Panel has carefully reviewed the record in this case, and finds nothing therein that would bring the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name within any of the “safe harbors” of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.
It is evident from the record that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant and had the Complainant’s well-known MICHELIN mark firmly in mind when registering the disputed domain name. The record is convincing that the Respondent did so with the aim of exploiting and profiting from the Complainant’s mark.
Having regard to all of the relevant circumstances in this case, and in the absence of any explanation by the Respondent, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has neither used nor demonstrated preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, and is not otherwise making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. There is no evidence whatsoever that the Respondent at any time has been commonly known by the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(c)(ii) of the Policy. In short, nothing in the record before the Panel supports a finding of the Respondent’s rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
D. Registered and Used in Bad FaithParagraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances, in particular but without limitation, shall be considered evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trademark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances from which such bad faith may be found. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows,WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from and exploit the trademark of another. See Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG,WIPO Case No. D2004-0230.
For the reasons discussed under this and the preceding heading, the Panel considers that the Respondent’s conduct in this case constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain namewithin the meaning of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy. The Panel concludes that the Respondent had the Complainant’s MICHELIN mark firmly in mind when registering the disputed domain name, and finds that the Respondent has acted opportunistically and in bad faith, seeking to exploit and profit from the Complainant’s trademark rights.
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,
William R. Towns
Sole Panelist
Date: November 23, 2021
1 See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.
2 Id.
3 See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8 and cases cited therein.
4 See WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.2 and cases cited therein.