The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.
The Respondent is Zhichao Yang (杨智超), China.
The disputed domain name <michlinwipers.com> is registered with Alibaba Cloud Computing (Beijing) Co., Ltd. (the “Registrar”).
The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on June 7, 2021. On June 8, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On June 9, 2021, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on June 9, 2021 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 in English on June 10, 2021.
On June 9, 2021, the Center transmitted another email communication to the Parties in English and Chinese regarding the language of the proceeding. On June 10, 2021, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.
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 June 15, 2021. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was July 5, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on July 6, 2021.
The Center appointed Joseph Simone as the sole panelist in this matter on July 13, 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.
The Complainant, Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin (“Michelin”), is a leading company in the car tire industry.
The Complainant is headquartered in Clermont-Ferrand, France, with nine R&D centers around the world, 117 production sites in 26 countries, a commercial presence in 170 countries, and 124,000 employees worldwide.
The Complainant has an extensive global portfolio of trade marks including the term MICHELIN, including the following:
- Chinese Trade Mark Registration No. 6167649 in Class 12, registered on January 7, 2010;
- Chinese Trade Mark Registration No. 10574991 in Class 16, registered on June 7, 2013; and
- Chinese Trade Mark Registration No. 9156074 in Class 35, registered on February 14, 2013.
The Complainant through its authorized entity owns the domain name <michelin.com>.
The disputed domain name was registered on September 29, 2020.
According to screenshots provided by the Complainant, at the time of filing the Complaint, the disputed domain name resolved to a pay-per-click (“PPC”) parking website. At the time of this Decision, the disputed domain name continues to do so.
The Complainant asserts that it has prior rights in the MICHELIN trade marks and that it is a leading player in its fields of business.
The Complainant further notes that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MICHELIN trade marks, and the addition of the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com” does not affect the analysis as to whether the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trade marks.
The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the MICHELIN mark, and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
The Complainant also asserts that there is no evidence suggesting that the Respondent has any connection to the MICHELIN mark in any way, and that there is no plausible good faith reason for the Respondent to have registered the disputed domain name, especially after considering the relevant circumstances. The Complainant therefore concludes that the registration and any use of the disputed domain name whatsoever must be in bad faith.
The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.
In accordance with paragraph 11(a) of the Rules:
“[…] the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding.”
In this case, the language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese. Hence, the default language of the proceeding should be Chinese.
However, the Complainant filed the Complaint in English, and requested that English be the language of the proceeding, asserting inter alia that:
- the Complainant is not familiar with the Chinese language, and to proceed in the Chinese language the Complainant would have to retain specialized translation services at a cost that is likely to be higher than the overall cost of the present proceeding;
- the disputed domain name includes only Latin characters, which strongly suggests that the Respondent has knowledge of languages other than Chinese; and
- English is the primary language for international relations.
The Respondent was notified in both Chinese and English of the language of the proceeding and the Complaint and did not comment on the language of the proceeding or submit any response.
Considering the circumstances in this case, the Panel has determined that the language of the proceeding shall be English, and the Panel has issued this decision in English. The Panel further finds that such determination would not cause any prejudice to either Party and would ensure that the proceeding takes place with due expedition.
The Panel acknowledges that the Complainant has established rights in the MICHELIN trade mark in many jurisdictions around the world.
Disregarding the “.com” gTLD, the disputed domain name incorporates the misspelling “michlin”. The trade mark MICHELIN remains aurally and phonetically recognizable within the disputed domain name. Thus, the disputed domain name should be regarded as confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MICHELIN trade mark. The additional term “wipers” does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity, and the Panel further notes that the dictionary term “wipers” directly targets the Complainant’s field of business.
The Panel therefore finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirements of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy in establishing its rights in the MICHELIN trade mark and in showing that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to its mark.
Pursuant to paragraph 4(c) of the Policy, the complainant is required to make out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Once such a prima facie case is made, the respondent carries the burden of producing evidence in support of its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. If the respondent fails to do so, the complainant may be deemed to have satisfied paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy. See WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 2.1.
The Complainant asserts that it has not authorized the Respondent to use its trade mark and there is no evidence to suggest that the Respondent has used, or undertaken any demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services.
Thus, the Complainant has established its prima facie case with satisfactory evidence.
The Respondent did not file a response and has therefore failed to assert factors or put forth evidence to establish that it enjoys rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. As such, the Panel concludes that the Respondent has failed to rebut the Complainant’s prima facie showing of the Respondent’s lack of rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and that none of the circumstances of paragraph 4(c) of the Policy is applicable in this case.
As previously noted above, the disputed domain name incorporates a misspelling of the Complainant’s mark with the additional term “wipers”, which is descriptive of a good associated with the Complainant’s industry.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.
Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy states that any of the following circumstances in particular but without limitation shall be considered evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith:
(i) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered or acquired the domain name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the domain name registration to the complainant (the owner of the trade mark or service mark) or to a competitor of that complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of the respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the domain name; or
(ii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name to prevent the owner of the trade mark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that the respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or
(iii) circumstances indicating that the respondent registered the domain name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or
(iv) circumstances indicating that the respondent is using the domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website or other online location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with the complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the respondent’s website or location or of a product or service on its website or location.
The examples of bad faith registration and use set forth in paragraph 4(b) of the Policy are not meant to be exhaustive of all circumstances in which bad faith may be found. See Telstra Corporation Limited v. Nuclear Marshmallows, WIPO Case No. D2000-0003. The overriding objective of the Policy is to curb the abusive registration of domain names in circumstances where the registrant seeks to profit from and exploit the trade mark of another party. See Match.com, LP v. Bill Zag and NWLAWS.ORG, WIPO Case No. D2004-0230.
For the reasons discussed under this and the preceding heading, the Panel believes that the Respondent’s conduct in this case constitutes bad faith registration and use of the disputed domain name within the meaning of paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy.
When the Respondent registered the disputed domain name on September 20, 2020, the MICHELIN trade marks were already widely known and directly associated with the Complainant’s activities.
Given the extensive prior use and fame of these marks, in the Panel’s view, the Respondent should have been aware of the Complainant’s marks when registering the disputed domain name.
The Respondent has provided no evidence to justify his registration of the disputed domain name. Given the foregoing, it would be unreasonable to conclude that the Respondent – at the time of the registration of the disputed domain name – was unaware of the Complainant’s trade mark, or that the Respondent’s adoption of the uncommon and distinctive trade mark MICHELIN was a mere coincidence.
The Complainant’s registered trade mark rights in MICHELIN for its signature products and services predate the registration date of the disputed domain name by at least two decades. A simple online search (e.g., via Baidu) for the term “michelin” would have revealed that it is a world-renowned brand.
The Panel is therefore of the view that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name with full knowledge of the Complainant’s trade mark rights, a finding which is reinforced considering the addition of the term “wipers” that illustrates the intention of the Respondent to target the Complainant.
The Respondent uses the disputed domain name to resolve to PPC website with links targeting the Complainant’s industry, presumably profiting from the misdirection of Internet users caused by the nature of the disputed domain name.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name with the intention of taking advantage of the fame and reputation of the Complainant’s trade mark for the commercial benefit of the Respondent.
Lastly, the Panel also notes that the Respondent has been involved in a number of UDRP proceedings. See e.g., AlliedBarton Security Services LLC v. Domain Administrator / Zhichao Yang, WIPO Case No. D2015-1991; Andrey Ternovskiy dba Chatroulette v. Domain Administrator, See PrivacyGuardian.org / Zhichao Yang, WIPO Case No. D2018-1388.
Accordingly, the Panel finds that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy.
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, <michlinwipers.com> be transferred to the Complainant.
Joseph Simone
Sole Panelist
Date: July 26, 2021