WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. VistaPrint Technologies Ltd

Case No. D2017-2250

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is VistaPrint Technologies Ltd of Hamilton, Bermuda, Overseas Territory of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <michelinlinensupply.com> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with Tucows Inc. (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 14, 2017. On November 14, 2017, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 14, 2017, 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 November 24, 2017. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 14, 2017. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on December 19, 2017.

The Center appointed Mathias Lilleengen as the sole panelist in this matter on January 3, 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.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is one of the leading tire companies in the world, designing and distributing tires, digital services, maps and guides. Michelin is present in 170 countries, has 111,700 employees and operates 68 production facilities in 17 countries which together produced 187 million tires in 2016.

The Complainant owns numerous MICHELIN trademark registrations around the world, in particular:

- International trademark MICHELIN no. 348615, registered on July 24, 1968, renewed and covering goods in classes 1, 6, 7, 8, 9, 12, 16, 17 and 20;

- European Community trade mark MICHELIN no. 001791243 registered on October 24, 2001, renewed and covering goods and services in classes 6, 7, 12, 17 and 28.

The Complainant owns domain names, such as <michelin.com> registered on December 1, 1993, and <michelin.fr> registered on July 21, 2008.

At the time of filing the Complaint, and at the time of drafting this decision, the Domain Name resolved to a webpage that promotes the Respondent:

“Websites are FREE at vistaprint.com/digital-marketing/web
Create Your Website in Minutes
Grow your business with an online presence
Coordinate your brand-online and offline
No programming skills needed”

According to the Registrar, the Domain Name registration expires on 2018-05-02.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant provides trademark registrations, and submits with reference to former WIPO UDRP decisions that its trademark is well known in the market. The Complainant argues that the Domain Name reproduces entirely the trademark MICHELIN with the addition of terms “linen” and “supply”. The Complainant argues that the adjunction of these terms does not diminish the confusing similarity between the Domain Name and the Complainant’s trademark. On the contrary, the use of the terms “linen” and “supply” increases the likelihood of confusion with the trademark as it may lead consumers to believe that the website is an official website of the Complainant or endorsed by the Complainant.

The Complainant argues further that the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way, or licensed or otherwise authorized to use the Complainant’s trademarks. The Respondent has no prior rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name. There is no relationship between the Parties that justifies the registration of the Domain Name by the Respondent and nothing in the record suggests that the Respondent is commonly known by the Domain Name. The Respondent uses the Domain Name for a website displaying an advertisement and related to the Respondent’s services. Hence, the Complainant concludes that the Respondent is not making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.

As to bad faith, the Complainant argues that it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when it registered the Domain Name. The Complainant is well known throughout the world. As described above, the Respondent is using the Domain Name to direct Internet users to a webpage displaying advertisement for his own services. The use of a well-known trademark to attract Internet users to a website for commercial gain constitutes a use in bad faith pursuant to the policy. Moreover, the Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter.

B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

The Complainant has established that it has rights in the trademark MICHELIN.

The test for confusing similarity involves the comparison between the trademark and the Domain Name. In this case, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark. The addition of the words “linen” and “supply” does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. For the purpose of assessing confusing similarity under paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, it is permissible for the Panel to ignore the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”.

The Panel finds that the Domain Name is confusingly similar to a trademark in which the Complainant has rights in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The Complainant has made unrebutted assertions that it has not granted any authorization to the Respondent to register a domain name containing its trademark or otherwise make use of its mark. Based on the evidence, the Respondent is not affiliated or related to the Complainant in any way. As documented by the Complainant, the Respondent uses the Domain Name to resolve to a website displaying an advertisement for the Respondent’s services. This is not a bona fide offering nor a legitimate noncommercial or fair use, within the meaning of the Policy.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has made out an unrebutted prima facie case. Accordingly, the Panel finds that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the Domain Name in accordance with paragraph 4(a)(ii) of the Policy.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

It is likely that the Respondent has been aware of the Complainant’s trademark and its business when the Respondent registered the Domain Name. The Complainant is well known throughout the world.

The Panel finds the Respondent registered and is using the Domain Name with the intention of confusing Internet users into believing that the Domain Name is associated with the Complainant. The use of the Domain Name to direct Internet users to a webpage advertising for the Respondent’s own services is use of a well-known trademark to attract Internet users to a website for commercial gain, and it constitutes bad faith pursuant to the Policy. The bad faith is supported by the fact that the Respondent has not responded to the Complainant’s cease and desist letter or the Complaint.

For the reasons set out above, the Panel concludes that the Domain Name was registered and is being used in bad faith, within the meaning of the 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 Domain Name <michelinlinensupply.com> be transferred to the Complainant.

Mathias Lilleengen
Sole Panelist
Date: January 10, 2018