About Intellectual Property IP Training IP Outreach IP for… IP and... IP in... Patent & Technology Information Trademark Information Industrial Design Information Geographical Indication Information Plant Variety Information (UPOV) IP Laws, Treaties & Judgements IP Resources IP Reports Patent Protection Trademark Protection Industrial Design Protection Geographical Indication Protection Plant Variety Protection (UPOV) IP Dispute Resolution IP Office Business Solutions Paying for IP Services Negotiation & Decision-Making Development Cooperation Innovation Support Public-Private Partnerships The Organization Working with WIPO Accountability Patents Trademarks Industrial Designs Geographical Indications Copyright Trade Secrets WIPO Academy Workshops & Seminars World IP Day WIPO Magazine Raising Awareness Case Studies & Success Stories IP News WIPO Awards Business Universities Indigenous Peoples Judiciaries Genetic Resources, Traditional Knowledge and Traditional Cultural Expressions Economics Gender Equality Global Health Climate Change Competition Policy Sustainable Development Goals Enforcement Frontier Technologies Mobile Applications Sports Tourism PATENTSCOPE Patent Analytics International Patent Classification ARDI – Research for Innovation ASPI – Specialized Patent Information Global Brand Database Madrid Monitor Article 6ter Express Database Nice Classification Vienna Classification Global Design Database International Designs Bulletin Hague Express Database Locarno Classification Lisbon Express Database Global Brand Database for GIs PLUTO Plant Variety Database GENIE Database WIPO-Administered Treaties WIPO Lex - IP Laws, Treaties & Judgments WIPO Standards IP Statistics WIPO Pearl (Terminology) WIPO Publications Country IP Profiles WIPO Knowledge Center WIPO Technology Trends Global Innovation Index World Intellectual Property Report PCT – The International Patent System ePCT Budapest – The International Microorganism Deposit System Madrid – The International Trademark System eMadrid Article 6ter (armorial bearings, flags, state emblems) Hague – The International Design System eHague Lisbon – The International System of Appellations of Origin and Geographical Indications eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Mediation Arbitration Expert Determination Domain Name Disputes Centralized Access to Search and Examination (CASE) Digital Access Service (DAS) WIPO Pay Current Account at WIPO WIPO Assemblies Standing Committees Calendar of Meetings WIPO Official Documents Development Agenda Technical Assistance IP Training Institutions COVID-19 Support National IP Strategies Policy & Legislative Advice Cooperation Hub Technology and Innovation Support Centers (TISC) Technology Transfer Inventor Assistance Program WIPO GREEN WIPO's Pat-INFORMED Accessible Books Consortium WIPO for Creators WIPO ALERT Member States Observers Director General Activities by Unit External Offices Job Vacancies Procurement Results & Budget Financial Reporting Oversight

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. haimin xu

Case No. D2019-2235

1. The Parties

The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.

The Respondent is haimin xu, China.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <wwwviamichelin.com> is registered with DropCatch.com LLC (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on September 16, 2019. On September 16, 2019, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On September 16, 2019, 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 September 24, 2019. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was October 14, 2019. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on October 15, 2019.

The Center appointed Nayiri Boghossian as the sole panelist in this matter on October 28, 2019. 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 owns a number of MICHELIN trademark registrations such as the European Union trademark registration no. 013558366 registered on April 17, 2015, European Union trademark registration no. 009914731 registered on September 27, 2011 and International trademark registration no. 771031 registered on June 11, 2001.

The Complainant owns a number of domain names which include the trademark MICHELIN including <viamichelin.com>.

The Complainant is a leading tires company, present in 171 countries, operating 69 manufacturing facilities in 17 countries and with 114,000 employees. The Complainant is present in China since 1988. The Complainant has been operating for 130 years.

In 2001, ViaMichelin was set up by the Complainant to develop digital services for travel assistance and was deployed in 13 countries in 2015. The Complainant’s website for this service is “www.viamichelin.com”.

The Respondent registered the disputed domain name on June 17, 2019. The disputed domain name resolves to a website containing links related to the Complainant’s trademark and its activities as well as products competitive of those of the Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The disputed domain name reproduces the trademark and tradename MICHELIN adding the word “via” and the letters “www”. The disputed domain name resolves to a parking page containing sponsored links targeting the Complainant’s trademark and activities. The Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent to which the latter replied by offering the disputed domain name for sale for USD 500.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN and tradename ViaMichelin. The Complainant owns numerous trademark registrations for the trademark MICHELIN around the world and the trademark MICHELIN enjoys worldwide reputation. The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s well-known trademark in its entirety. The addition of terms such as “via” and the prefix “www” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity. On the contrary, the use of “via” references the Complainant’s digital travel assistance. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” is irrelevant.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant nor was authorized by the latter to use its trademark MICHELIN. The trademark MICHELIN precedes the registration of the disputed domain name. The Respondent is not commonly known by the name “michelin”. Furthermore, the Respondent cannot demonstrate a bona fide offering of goods or services. The Respondent is using the disputed domain name to resolve to a parking page, which helps obtain financial gain. There is also no evidence of making a legitimate, noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name without intent for commercial gain. The Respondent’s intent for commercial gain is further demonstrated by its response to the cease-and-desist letter whereby he offered the disputed domain name for sale. Further, there may be a phishing attempt given that email servers have been configured on the disputed domain name.

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Bad faith registration can be found where the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark rights. The Respondent must have known of the Complainant’s trademark given that it is wellknown throughout the world. The use of “via” demonstrates the Respondent’s knowledge of the Complainant’s tradename. Furthermore, the trademark MICHELIN far predates the disputed domain name registration. A quick search of MICHELIN would have made the Respondent aware of the existence of the Complainant and its trademark. Bad faith use is demonstrated through a number of facts; the Respondent is using the disputed domain name to attract traffic by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s trademark, the disputed domain name resolves to a parking page displaying commercial links targeting the Complainant and its services from which financial gain is obtained by the Respondent or third parties, the addition of “www” shows an intention to attract Internet users through typing error, which is a form of typosquatting and finally, the Respondent’s offer to sell the disputed domain name for USD 500 is a further indication of 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 owns trademark registrations for the trademark MICHELIN in many jurisdictions. The Panel is satisfied that the Complainant has established its ownership of the trademark MICHELIN.

The disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN in its entirety combined with the term “via” and the letters “www”. Neither of these two prevent a finding of confusing similarity with the trademark MICHELIN, particularly in light of the fact that MICHELIN is a well-known trademark and is the predominant part of the disputed domain name. The gTLD “.com” should typically be ignored when assessing confusing similarity as established by prior UDRP decisions.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark of the Complainant and that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made a prima facie showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, particularly by asserting that it never authorized the Respondent to use its trademark as part of the disputed domain name.

The Respondent has not provided evidence of circumstances of the types specified in paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, or of any other circumstances, giving rise to rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. In particular, the Panel notes that the disputed domain name resolves to a website containing links related to the Complainant’s trademark and its activities as well as products competitive of those of the Complainant. The Panel does not find this to be a bona fide offering of goods or services within the meaning of the Policy.

Consequently, the Panel finds that the Complainant has met the requirement under the Policy of showing that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

Accordingly, the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The element of bad faith is evidenced by the fact that the trademark MICHELIN is wellknown and has been in use for decades before the disputed domain name got registered. Furthermore, the website to which the disputed domain name resolves contains links to tires, which is the key activity of the Complainant. Hence, it must be that the Respondent was fully aware of the Complainant and its trademark and has registered and used the disputed domain name comprising the Complainant’s mark with the aim of attracting consumers to its website and with the intent of commercial gain, by creating the impression of being affiliated with the Complainant. The fact that the Respondent offered the disputed domain name for sale for USD 500 in response to the cease-and-desist letter sent by the Complainant is a further indication of bad faith.

Such conduct falls squarely within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy, and accordingly, the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied paragraph 4(a)(iii) 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 <wwwviamichelin.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Nayiri Boghossian
Sole Panelist
Date: October 31, 2019

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/en/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/en/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/en/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/en/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/en/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/en/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/en/ https://www.wipo.int/news/en/