ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Host Master, 1337 Services LLC Case No. D2024-1813 1. The Parties The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France. The Respondent is Host Master, 1337 Services LLC, Saint Kitts and Nevis. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on April 30, 2024. On April 30, 2024, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On the same day, 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 (Redacted for Privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on May 1, 2024, 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 May 3, 2024. 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 May 3, 2024. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was May 23, 2024. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on May 28, 2024.
page 2 The Center appointed George R. F. Souter as the sole panelist in this matter on May 31, 2024. 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, a French company, is one of the leader providers of vehicle tyres worldwide under its MICHELIN trademark. Since 1920, the Complainant has also produced MICHELIN guides, to help tourists find appropriate accommodation and restaurant facilities. These MICHELIN guides have become best-sellers, and have achieved significant status. The Complainant has registered its MICHELIN widely throughout the world. These registrations include International Registration No. 1348615, registered on November 28, 1997, and International Registration No. 492879, registered on May 10, 1985. The disputed domain name was registered on February 2, 2024, and does not resolve to an inactive webpage. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to its MICHELIN trademark, containing the MICHELIN trademark in its entirety, with the mere addition of the non-distinctive term “sol”. The Complainant contends that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, in particular that it is not generally known by the disputed domain name, and that the Complainant has never granted permission to the Respondent to use its MICHELIN trademark in connection with the registration of a domain name, or otherwise. The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered in bad faith, and is being used in bad faith. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.
page 3 The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7. The addition of the term “sol” to the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark does not detract from this finding. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established. B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the non-use of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith in the circumstances of this proceeding. When considered the present circumstances of the case, namely (i) the degree of distinctiveness or reputation of the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark, (ii) the failure of the Respondent to submit a response or to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, and (iii) the implausibility of any good faith use to which the domain names may be put. In particular, the Panel considers that any use of the disputed domain name would be likely to invoke an unjustifiable affiliation with the Complainant, and its goods and services. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 the Complainant. /George R. F. Souter/ George R. F. Souter Sole Panelist Date: June 14, 2024
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy