The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Ehsan Jahani Jirsaraee, Iran (Islamic Republic of).
2. The Domain Name and RegistrarThe disputed domain name
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 18, 2021. On October 19, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to IRNIC a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On October 26, 2021, IRNIC 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 .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “irDRP”), the Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules for .ir Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”).
In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2(a) and 4(a), the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 27, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5(a), the due date for Response was November 16, 2021. On November 19, 2021, the Center notified the Respondent’s default.
The Center appointed Tobias Zuberbühler as the sole panelist in this matter on November 23, 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 leading tire company with 117 production sites in 26 countries, a commercial presence in 170 countries and 124000 employees worldwide.
The Complainant owns trademark registrations in various jurisdictions, including the Iranian trademark MICHELIN (Reg. No. 164727, registered on March 3, 2009), the Iranian trademark MICHELIN (Reg. No. 49311, registered on June 13, 1978) and the International trademark MICHELIN (Reg. No. 771031, registered on June 11, 2001).
The Complainant further holds the domain name
The disputed domain name was created on May 9, 2019 and resolves to a website in Persian copying the official logo and “michelin man” of the Complainant with a general presentation of the website similar to the Complainant’s official website.
5. Parties’ Contentions A. ComplainantThe Complainant alleges that it has satisfied all elements of the Policy, paragraph 4.
B. RespondentThe Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
6. Discussion and FindingsOn the basis of the facts and evidence introduced by the Complainant, and with regard to paragraphs 4(a), (b) and (c) of the Policy, the Panel concludes as follows:
A. Language of the ProceedingsThe Complainant states that to the best of its knowledge, the language of the registration agreement is English. However, since the registration agreement is also available in Persian, the Complainant submits arguments why the language of the proceedings should be English.
Since IRNIC has confirmed that the language of the registration agreement as used by the registrant for the disputed domain name is English, the language of the proceedings is English.
B. Identical or Confusingly SimilarThe Complainant has submitted sufficient evidence to demonstrate its registered rights in the MICHELIN trademark.
As stated in WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.71 , “[t]his test [under the first element] typically involves a side-by-side comparison of the domain name and the textual components of the relevant trademark to assess whether the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain name. […] In some cases, such assessment may also entail a more holistic aural or phonetic comparison of the complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name to ascertain confusing similarity.” Further, “panels have also found that the overall facts and circumstances of a case (including relevant website content) may support a finding of confusing similarity, particularly where it appears that the respondent registered the domain name precisely because it believed that the domain name was confusingly similar to a mark held by the complainant.” See also section 1.15 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Considering that the disputed domain name is phonetically and visually similar to the Complainant’s trademark and the website under the disputed domain name is copied to look associated with the Complainant’s official website, the Panel concludes that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark.
The Complainant has thus satisfied the requirements under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
C. Rights or Legitimate InterestsThere are no indications before the Panel of any rights or legitimate interests of the Respondent in respect of the disputed domain name. The Complainant contends that the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor making any bona fide use of the disputed domain name.
The Respondent uses the disputed domain name to promote alleged services in connection to the Complainant’s business. The Complainant has credibly alleged that the Respondent uses the disputed domain name for generating revenue by offering fake products and services while taking advantage of the Complainant’s trademark notoriety. This cannot be considered as a bona fide offering of goods or services or a noncommercial use.
The Panel finds that the Complainant, having made out a prima facie case which remains unrebutted by the Respondent, has fulfilled the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
D. Registered or Used in Bad FaithUnder the circumstances of this case, including the composition of the disputed domain name and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark, it can be inferred that the Respondent was aware of the Complainant’s trademark when registering the disputed domain name.
The evidence and allegations submitted by the Complainant support a finding that the Respondent was engaged in an attempt to pass himself off as the Complainant and to use the disputed domain name for his own commercial benefit. The Respondent therefore used the disputed domain name in bad faith (see Claudie Pierlot v. Yinglong Ma,WIPO Case No. D2018-2466).
Accordingly, the Complainant has also fulfilled 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
Tobias Zuberbühler
Sole Panelist
Date: November 24, 2021
1 Given the similarities between the .irDRP and the UDRP, the Panel takes note of the applicable WIPO Overview 3.0, sections and the cases therein as relevant.