ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. fule FM Case No. D2025-3982 1. The Parties The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France. The Respondent is fule FM, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name is registered with West263 International Limited (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 30, 2025. On September 30, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 8, 2025, 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 (Registration Private) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 8, 2025 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 9, 2025. 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 10, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 30, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on November 6, 2025.
page 2 The Center appointed Xu Lin as the sole panelist in this matter on November 12, 2025. 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, created in 1889, is a French corporation operating business with a presence in many countries selling tires. It is also involved in travel publications since 1900 and has promoted its brand MICHELIN for more than a century. The Complainant owns numerous MICHELIN trademark registrations around the world, including the following: - International Trademark No. 771031 for MICHELIN, registered on June 11, 2001, in classes 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 39, and 42; - United States Trademark No. 4126565 for MICHELIN, registered on April 10, 2012, in classes 36, 37, and 39; and - United States Trademark No. 892045 for MICHELIN, registered on June 2, 1970, in class 12. The domain name , registered in 1993, resolves to the Complainant’ s official website promoting its products and services. The Respondent is reportedly based in the United States. The disputed domain name was registered on May 21, 2025, and currently resolves to an error page. The Complainant has submitted evidence showing that the disputed domain name initially resolved to an inactive website and shortly before the filing of the Complaint, it was used to host a website that purported to offer clothing and footwear products of a third-party brand. 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. Notably, the Complainant contends that: Firstly, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the MICHELIN marks. - The disputed domain name reproduces entirely the Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN, which previous panels have considered to be “well known” or “famous”. - Although the disputed domain name includes the generic and descriptive term “shiv” (a slang term for a makeshift knife or sharp weapon, often associated with prisons, or, in Hindi and Sanskrit, it refers to Shiv or Shiva, one of the main Hindu deities). The addition of generic terms to the well-known trademark does not prevent the risk of confusion between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. - By registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent created a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark. It is likely that the disputed domain name could mislead Internet users into thinking that it is, in some way, associated with the Complainant.
page 3 Secondly, the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. - The Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has it been authorized by the Complainant to use and register its trademark, or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said mark. - The disputed domain name resolves to a website that purports to offer clothing products. The site promotes goods bearing a third-party brand, a well-known UK fashion label entirely unrelated to the Respondent and wholly independent from the Complainant. - The Complainant had sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent via the Registrar; subsequently, the Complainant submitted a formal notice to the hosting provider of the website that the disputed domain name resolved to, requesting the site be taken down, but the Respondent never replied. Finally, the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. - It is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name, considering that: (1) the Complainant is well known throughout the world; (2) the composition of the disputed domain name entirely reproduces the Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN and associates it with the term “shiv” and the extension “.shop”. (3) the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark registrations significantly predate the registration date of the disputed domain name. A simple search demonstrates the association between the term “Michelin” and the Complainant. - The Respondent also uses the disputed domain name in bad faith: (1) in the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant to use such widely known trademark, no actual or contemplated bona fide or legitimate use of the disputed domain name could reasonably be claimed. (2) The disputed domain name resolves to a website offering clothing products of a third-party brand. (3) It is likely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to prevent the Complainant from using their trademarks in the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7. 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. 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. Although the addition of other terms here, “shiv” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.
page 4 B. Rights or Legitimate Interests Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name. Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. 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 Complainant has not granted any license or right to the Respondent to use its trademark, and there is no evidence that the Respondent has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, or has used the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. The evidence submitted by the Complainant indicates that the disputed domain name was initially inactive and then resolved to a website that purported to offer clothing and footwear products bearing a third party brand. The Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name which is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark in this manner is likely to cause confusion among consumers and cannot confer any rights or legitimate interests onto the Respondent in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith. In the present case, given the wide use, distinctiveness, and strong reputation of the MICHELIN trademark, the Panel finds it highly unlikely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant’s mark. The Respondent has provided no explanation for its choice of the disputed domain name, nor is there any apparent legitimate reason for the Respondent to have incorporated the famous MICHELIN mark into the disputed domain name other than to exploit the value and reputation of the MICHELIN mark. According to the evidence submitted by the Complainant, the disputed domain name was initially inactive and then resolved to a website that purported to offer clothing and footwear products bearing a third party brand. By using the disputed domain name that incorporating the well-known MICHELIN mark, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract Internet users to its website possibly for commercial gain. The Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent via Registrar; subsequently, the Complainant submitted a formal notice to the website hosting provider, requesting the site be taken down, but the Respondent has never replied to the Complainant’s cease-and-desist letter.
page 5 Having reviewed the record, the Panel considers the Respondent registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. 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. /Xu Lin/ Xu Lin Sole Panelist Date: November 26, 2025
Full & Egal Universal Law Academy