The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin of Clermont-Ferrand, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Compagnie Generale des Etablissements Michelin, Manufacture Française des Pneumatiques Michelin of Clermont-Ferrand, France.
The disputed domain name <michelin.travel> is registered with Name.com, Inc. (Name.com LLC) (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 5, 2018. On July 5, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 5, 2018, 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 July 13, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 2, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 7, 2018.
The Center appointed Isabelle Leroux as the sole panelist in this matter on August 17, 2018. 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.
The Complainant is a French company based in Clermont-Ferrand, manufacturing and distributing tires, providing services and solutions for automobile industry in 170 countries all over the world.
The Complainant is the owner of numerous trademark registrations, in particular:
International trademark MICHELIN, registered under No. 348615 on July 24, 1968, covering goods in classes 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17, and 20;
European Union trade mark MICHELIN, registered under No. 001791243 on October 24, 2001, designating notably goods in the classes 6, 7, 12, 17, and 28 (together, the “Marks”).
The Complainant owns also the domain name <michelin.com>, registered on December 1, 1993.
The Complainant also offers for decades publications relating to restaurant and hotel guides and maps, notably the MICHELIN Guide, available in several countries, including France, and digital travel assistance products and services in Europe through its subsidiary “ViaMichelin”.
The disputed domain name <michelin.travel> was registered on March 1, 2018, and used to resolve to a website entitled “Michelin Guide – the official website”.
The disputed domain name is now inactive after a formal notification sent by the Complainant to the registrar and the webhost of the disputed domain name.
(i) The Complainant submits that the disputed domain name <michelin.travel> reproduces the Marks in which the Complainant has rights and creates a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Marks since the addition of the top level domain “.travel” should be disregarded. Therefore, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Marks.
(ii) The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. In particular, the Complainant submits that the Respondent was not granted any right or license to use the name “Michelin”.
In addition, the Complainant states that the disputed domain name was initially redirected towards the Complainant’s official website “www.guide.michelin.com” entitled “Michelin Guide”, therefore the Respondent is not using the disputed domain name for a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The fact that the Respondent never answered to the Complainant’s letter despite reminders is another factor analyzed by the Complainant as an assumption of the lack of legitimate interests.
(iii) The Complainant also contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, and states that given the international reputation of the Complainant and its Marks, the Respondent knew or should have known the existence of the Complainant’s rights, and that the Respondent is likely to have registered the disputed domain name for the purpose to prevent the Complainant from using its Marks in a corresponding domain name.
Moreover, the Complainant argues that the Complainant is a victim of “impersonation” whose identity, namely its name and address, was used by the Respondent for the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant states that the redirection towards the Complainant’s website and the misuse of the Complainant’s identity by the Respondent constitutes use in bad faith, aiming to deceive Internet users to believe that the Respondent is, or related with, the Complainant.
The Complainant further states that an email server has been set up on the disputed domain name which may have been used by the Respondent to conduct a “phishing scheme” attempting to seek valuable information from the customers of the Complainant, which constitutes another evidence of bad faith.
(iv) The Complainant requests that the disputed domain name be transferred to the Complainant.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
The Panel notes that the Respondent is formally in default pursuant to paragraphs 5(f) and 14(a) of the Rules because no response was received from the Respondent within the time limit set by the Policy and the Rules.
However, the Panel finds that this does not mean that the remedies requested should automatically be awarded. The Panel will have to establish whether the Complainant’s case meets the requirements of paragraph 4 of the Policy. See LEGO Juris A/S v. NyunHwa Jung, WIPO Case No. D2012-1233; Charabot SA v. Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2018-0339.
Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires the Complainant to prove each of the following elements in order to obtain relief:
(i) The domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and
(iii) The domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
These elements will be examined in turn below.
The Complainant has submitted evidence that it is the owner of the Marks MICHELIN. This satisfies the Panel that the Complainant has registered trademark rights in the MICHELIN trademark for the purposes of the Policy.
In comparing the disputed domain name <michelin.travel> with the Marks, the Panel finds that the Marks are replicated entirely in the disputed domain name, the latter simply containing as suffix the Top-Level Domain “.travel”.
Previous UDRP panels have regularly ruled that the addition of a generic a Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) such as “.travel” is not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or similarity between a complainant’s trademarks and the disputed domain name. See Kayak Software Corporation v. KAYAK.travel, KAYAK.travel Corporation, Kayak Las Vegas, LLC, WIPO Case No. D2011-0425; AIDA Cruises German Branch of Societá di Crociere Mercurio S.r.L. v. Aida Ltd., Stefan Miersen, WIPO Case No. D2008-1132; The Pensions Advisory Service Ltd v. Labitrav, WIPO Case No. D2008-1161; Yell Limited v. Yell.travel, WIPO Case No. D2008-0586. In view of this, the Panel will disregard the gTLD “.travel” of the disputed domain name.
The relevant part of the disputed domain name is therefore “michelin”, which is strictly identical to the MICHELIN trademarks of the Complainant. In view of this, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is identical to the Marks in which the Complainant has rights.
Thus, the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.
The Complainant submits that the Respondent has not been granted any right or license by the Complainant to use the MICHELIN trademark.
In addition, the Complainant provided evidence that the disputed domain name is not used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services and no legitimate noncommercial or fair use is made of the disputed domain name.
Indeed, the disputed domain name was initially redirected towards the Complainant’s official website “www.guide.michelin.com” entitled “Michelin Guide”, without any authorization of the Complainant, and is now inactive after a formal notification sent by the Complainant to the registrar and the webhost of the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Complainant has credibly established a prima facie case that the Respondent does not have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.
By not submitting a Response, the Respondent offered no information on what rights or legitimate interests it may have in the disputed domain name. Thus the Panel finds no indication that any of the circumstances described in paragraph 4(c)(i) to (iii) of the Policy could apply to the present matter.
Therefore, given the circumstances described above, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name and thus the requirement under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy is met.
It has been proven to the Panel’s satisfaction that the Complainant’s Marks MICHELIN are well known, registered and present in many countries, including France where the Respondent is allegedly located. The Panel accepts that the Respondent, who used the name and the address of the Complainant, without authorization, is an aggravating fact, and could not reasonably claim to be ignorant of the Complainant’s activities.
Moreover, the Complainant provided evidence that the disputed domain name used to redirect towards a website entitled “Michelin Guide – the official website”, referring to the Complainant, its Marks and its official website.
Previous UDRP panels have regularly ruled that bad faith was found where a domain name is obviously connected with a well-known trademark that its very use by someone with no connection to the trademark suggests opportunistic bad faith. See LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour, WIPO Case No. D2013-0091; Carrefour v. Jean-Claude Bot / Albert Pierre, WIPO Case No. D2017-0969.
The above elements indicate that the registration of the disputed domain name prevents the Complainant from reflecting the Marks in a corresponding domain name. It is therefore demonstrated that the disputed domain name has been registered in bad faith.
The Complainant further demonstrated that an email server has been configured on the disputed domain name with a real risk that the Respondent may be engaged in a phishing scheme, aiming to deceive Internet users to believe they were dealing with the Complainant.
Previous UDRP panels have held that the use of a domain name for purposes other than to host a website may constitute bad faith. Such purposes include phishing and identity theft. See Accenture Global Services Limited v. Patel Holdings, WIPO Case No. D2016-0367; Accor SA v. Domain Admin, WIPO Case No. D2017-1225.
By not submitting a Response, the Respondent offered no information that might have led the Panel to question the Complainant’s arguments that the Respondent acted in bad faith by creating confusion with the Complainant and the Marks for the purposes of committing a “phishing scheme”. While there is no concrete evidence of phishing per se, the Panel finds that the Respondent is attempting to create some form of association with the Complainant, when in fact there is none.
This Panel finds that the intention of the Respondent to take undue advantage of the Complainant’s Marks has been demonstrated.
Lastly, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name is now inactive. In any event, the non-use of a domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding (WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 3.3).
For the above reasons, the Panel finds that the condition of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy has been satisfied.
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 <michelin.travel> be transferred to the Complainant.
Isabelle Leroux
Sole Panelist
Date: September 3, 2018