The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Complainant has named two Respondents: Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot, United States of America and Zhichao, China. The Registrar has confirmed that the registered owner of the Domain Name is Zhichao. Accordingly, the Panel will treat Zhichao as the sole Respondent.
The disputed domain name <michelincarreers.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Dynadot, LLC (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 20, 2020. On July 21, 2020, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On July 22, 2020, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the Domain Name, which differed from the named Respondent and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 22, 2020, 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 July 28, 2020.
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 August 5, 2020. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 25, 2020. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on August 26, 2020.
The Center appointed Jonas Gulliksson as the sole panelist in this matter on September 1, 2020. 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 manufactures and markets tires for every type of vehicle and is present in more than 170 countries, has 112 300 employees and operates 68 production plants in 17 different countries.
The Complainant is the proprietor of, i.a., the following trademark registrations for the trademark MICHELIN:
- Chinese trademark MICHELIN No 136402, dated April 5, 1980, duly renewed and covering goods in class 12;
- Chinese trademark MICHELIN No 9156074, dated February 28, 2011, and covering services in class 35;
- Chinese trademark MICHELIN No 6167649, dated July 16, 2007, and covering goods in class 12;
- Chinese trademark MICHELIN No 10574991, dated March 6, 2012, and covering goods in class 16.
- International trademark MICHELIN No 771031, registered on June 11, 2001, covering goods and services in classes 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 39 and 42, and designating among others: China, Russia, Vietnam and Singapore.
- European Union Trademark MICHELIN No 009914731, registered on September 27, 2011, and covering goods and services in classes 9, 35, 37, 38, 39, 41, 42 and 43.
The Domain Name was registered on March 17, 2020, and resolves to a parked website displaying links related to job postings, applicant tracking systems, employee onboarding system, payroll services, employee benefits, recruitment software and HR software.
The Complainant contends the following:
The Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN, considering it reproduces the trademark in its entirety. The addition of the generic term “carreers” in the Domain Name is insufficient to avoid confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) extension “.com” is not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the Domain Name.
The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name and cannot claim prior rights or legitimate interest in the Domain Name as the MICHELIN trademark precedes the registration of the Domain Name. Further, the Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant nor has he been authorized by the Complainant to use or register the Complainant’s trademark or to seek registration of any Domain Name incorporating such trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the Domain Name and cannot assert to have made demonstrable preparations to use, or a name corresponding to the Domain Name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Further, the Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter. In addition, the Respondent is a well-known cyber-squatter that has been the subject of a number UDRP proceedings.
The Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith. It is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark rights when he registered the Domain Name, considering that the Complainant is well-known throughout the world, the composition of the Domain Name and the fact that the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark registrations predates the registration of the Domain Name. The Respondent has most likely registered the Domain Name based on notoriety and attractiveness of the Complainant’s trademark to divert Internet traffic to its website. Consequently, the Respondent registered the Domain Name in bad faith. As regard use in bad faith, the absence of any license or permission from the Complainant indicates such use. As the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark, such confusion will inevitably result in the diversion of Internet traffic from the Complainant’s website to the Respondent’s website. Moreover, there might be a risk that the Respondent is engaged in a phishing schema considering that email servers have been configured on the Domain Name. This could enable the Respondent to steal valuable information such as from the Complainant’s clients or employees. Finally, it is not possible to conceive a plausible circumstance in which the Respondent could legitimately use the Domain Name as it would invariably result in misleading diversion and taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights. Consequently, the Respondent is using the Domain Name in bad faith.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
The burden for the Complainant under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy is to prove:
(i) that the Domain Name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights;
(ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name; and
(iii) that the Domain Name has been registered and is being used in bad faith.
The Complainant has clearly established that it is proprietor to several trademark registrations for the trademark MICHELIN, which are registered prior to the registration of the Domain Name.
The Domain Name incorporates the Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN in its entirety, along with the term “carreers” and the gTLD extension “.com”. It is clear that the part of the Domain Name consisting of the Complainant’s trademark is the dominant feature of the Domain Name. This is sufficient to establish that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark (see WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7). Moreover, the generic term “carreers” does not remove the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN. Further, it is well established that “.com”, as a gTLD suffix, is disregarded in the assessment of the similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1).
Consequently, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark.
Under paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy, a complainant must first make out a prima facie case showing that the respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in respect of a disputed domain name and then the burden, in effect, shifts to the respondent to come forward with evidence of its rights or legitimate interests (see WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1).
The Panel notes that the Complainant has made a prima facie case, showing that the Respondent has not acquired trademark or service mark rights in relation to the Domain Name, nor has he been authorized by the Complainant to use the trademark MICHELIN or seek registration for a domain name incorporating such trademark. Further, the Respondent’s identity has not been publicly accessible. It seems like the Respondent has been using a domain name service which enables him to conceal his identity, which indicates that the Respondent has not been commonly known by the Domain Name. In addition, as discussed in the below section, the content of the website associated with the Domain Name does not indicate any legitimate interest in relation to the Domain Name on behalf of the Respondent.
The burden of proof has shifted to the Respondent, who has not responded nor shown that it has any rights or legitimate interest in relation to the Domain Name. Consequently, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name.
Taking into account that the Domain Name reproduces the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark in its entirety and that the Respondent has not been authorized by the Complainant to use the trademark, it is difficult to conceive any plausible legitimate use of the Domain Name by the Respondent. It rather seems like the Respondent has tried to benefit from or exploit the Complainant’s trademark by misleading Internet users into thinking that the website associated with the Domain Name is somehow linked to the Complainant, thus diverting Internet traffic to its website for pay-per-click revenue. Moreover, it seems like the Respondent has tried to disguise its identity by using a privacy domain name service, which also indicates bad faith by the Respondent in this case (see Fifth Third Bancorp v. Secure Whois Information Service, WIPO Case No. D2006-0696). The Respondent’s failure to respond to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter strengthens this indication.
Consequently, the Panel finds that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith by the Respondent.
For the foregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Domain Name, <michelincarreers.com>, be transferred to the Complainant.
Jonas Gulliksson
Sole Panelist
Date: September 15, 2020