Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v Name Redacted

WIPO Case No. D2025-2729

ARBITRATION
AND
MEDIATION CENTER

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Name Redacted

Case No. D2025-2729

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Name Redacted[1].

[1] The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In light of the potential

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <michelin-onmicrosoft.com> is registered with Wild West Domains, LLC (the

“Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 10, 2025. On July 10, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 11, 2025, 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 (“Domains By Proxy, LLC”) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 14, 2025, 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 15, 2025

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”).

page 2

In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on July 16, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 5, 2025. On July 18 and 21, 2025, the Center received email communications from a third party.

The Center appointed Iris Quadrio as the sole panelist in this matter on August 11, 2025. 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 a leading tire company worldwide and one of the sources of innovation in the global tire industry. Founded in 1889 and headquartered in Clermont-Ferrand, France, the Complainant has been at the forefront of innovation in the mobility industry for over 130 years. The Complainant is present in 170 countries, employs more than 124,000 people, and operates 117 tire manufacturing facilities and sales

agencies in 26 countries.

Beyond tire manufacturing, the Complainant also provides digital services, maps, and travel guides, including the renowned MICHELIN Guide, which has rated more than 30,000 establishments worldwide and sold over 30 million copies since its launch in 1920.

Over the years, the Complainant has received numerous awards for quality and innovation, including 88 initial quality awards from J.D. Power & Associates and was named No. 1 Best Large Employer in America by Forbes magazine in 2018.

In North America, the Complainant operates through Michelin North America, which generates approximately USD 10.76 billion in annual revenue, employs 22,000 people, and operates 19 plants across 16 locations in the United States of America, Canada and Mexico.

The Complainant is the owner of the trademark MICHELIN in many jurisdictions, including international registration Reg. No. 771031, for classes 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 39, and 42, registered since June 11, 2001; United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) Reg. No. 4126565, for classes 36, 37, and 39, registered since April 10, 2012; USPTO Reg. No. 892045, for class 12, registered since June 2, 1970; and USPTO Reg. No. 3329924, for class 39, registered since November 6, 2007.

Likewise, the Complainant claims to have online Internet presence through its main domain name
<michelin.com>, registered since December 1, 1993.

As demonstrated by the Complainant in Annex 6 to the Complaint, the Complainant tried to solve this matter amicably by sending a cease-and-desist letter via the Registrar’s online form to the Respondent on January 20, 2025, but did not receive a response.

Lastly, the disputed domain name was registered on December 23, 2024, and it resolved to a parking page displaying pay-per-click (“PPC”) links. Currently it resolves to an inactive site with active mail exchange (“MX”) servers associated to the disputed domain name.

5. Parties’ Contentions
A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a cancellation of the disputed domain name.

page 3

The Complainant states that the disputed domain name <michelin-onmicrosoft.com> is confusingly similar to its trademark MICHELIN on which the Complainant has prior rights.

The Complainant contends that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name <michelin-onmicrosoft.com> and that he is not related in any way to the Complainant.

More specifically, the Complainant alleges that the Respondent were more likely aware of the Complainant and its MICHELIN mark, used the disputed domain name for PPC links to generate revenue and is currently passively holding the disputed domain name.

Finally, the Complainant requests the Administrative Panel appointed in this administrative proceeding that the disputed domain name <michelin-onmicrosoft.com> be cancelled.

B. Respondent

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

The Respondent appears to have used the name of a third party when registering the disputed domain name. In this regard, a third party contacted the Center on July 18, 2025, and has stated that she did not register the disputed domain name and that she does not know how her name became associated with it.

6. Discussion and Findings

According to paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, for this Complaint to succeed in relation to the disputed domain name, the Complainant must prove each of the following, namely that:

(i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar with a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; and

(ii)       the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and

(iii)      the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith.

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

It is well accepted that the first element functions primarily as a standing requirement. The standing (or threshold) test for confusing similarity involves a reasoned but relatively straightforward comparison between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview of WIPO Panel Views on Selected UDRP Questions, Third Edition, (“WIPO Overview 3.0”), section 1.7.

The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy.
WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.2.1.

The entirety of the mark is reproduced within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.7.

Although the addition of other terms here, a hyphen and the terms “onmicrosoft”, may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms does not prevent a finding of confusing similarity between the disputed domain name and the mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8.

Moreover, the “.com” generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) is viewed as a standard registration requirement and is generally disregarded under the first element of the confusing similarity test, as set forth in section 1.11.1 of WIPO Overview 3.0.

page 4

The Panel finds the first element of the Policy has been established.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

Paragraph 4(c) of the Policy provides a list of circumstances in which the Respondent may demonstrate rights or legitimate interests in a disputed domain name.

Although the overall burden of proof in UDRP proceedings is on the complainant, panels have recognized that proving a respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in a domain name may result in the difficult task of “proving a negative”, requiring information that is often primarily within the knowledge or control of the respondent. As such, where a complainant makes out a prima facie case that the respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests, the burden of production on this element shifts to the respondent to come forward with relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (although the burden of proof always remains on the complainant). If the respondent fails to come forward with such relevant

evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisfied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section
2.1.

The Complainant has claimed not to have authorized, licensed, or permitted the Respondent to register or use the disputed domain name or to use the trademark MICHELIN nor is there any other evidence in the file suggesting that the Respondent has or could have rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. Also, the Complainant has prior rights in the MICHELIN trademark which clearly precedes the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name.

Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima facie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima facie showing and has not come forward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise.

Even more, it does not seem that the Respondent made nor is making a legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the disputed domain name. In this regard, the Complainant demonstrated in Annex 1 to the Complaint that the disputed domain name resolved to a website parked with PPC links, some related to the

Complainant’s activities, that redirected users to different websites. The Panel finds that the Respondent’s sole intention is to generate confusion among consumers as to the origin of the website only for the purpose of gaining commercial profit. Currently, the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website.

The Panel finds the second element of the Policy has been established.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

The Panel notes that, for the purposes of paragraph 4(a)(iii) of the Policy, paragraph 4(b) of the Policy establishes circumstances, in particular, but without limitation, that, if found by the Panel to be present, shall be evidence of the registration and use of a domain name in bad faith.

In such connection, the Complainant has submitted evidence to support that the trademark MICHELIN is
widely known and was registered and used many years before the Respondent registered the disputed
domain name. When registering the disputed domain name, the Respondent has targeted the
Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN to create confusion among the Internet users and benefit from the
Complainant’s reputation.

Therefore, the Panel is satisfied that the Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN when it registered the disputed domain name. Consequently, and in accordance with section 3.1.4 of WIPO Overview 3.0, the Panel considers that the inclusion of the

Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark in the disputed domain name creates a presumption that the disputed domain name was registered on a bad faith basis. Moreover, the fact that the disputed domain name

page 5

reproduces the Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN in its entirety together with the term “onmicrosoft”, which mimics the structure of Microsoft-based email services, further underscores the Respondent’s bad faith.

The disputed domain name initially resolved to a PPC parking page with various links. The Panel finds therefore that the Respondent’s use of the disputed domain name incorporating the Complainant’s distinctive and well-known mark MICHELIN is intended to attract and mislead Internet users when searching for the Complainant’s website and to redirect them to the links related to the Complainant’s potential competitors from which the Respondent most probably derives commercial revenue.

The Panel notes that the disputed domain names currently resolve to an inactive website. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the inactive use of the disputed domain name, does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy.

Even more, the Respondent has ignored the cease-and-desist letter from the Complainant, which aimed at resolving this matter amicably outside of this administrative proceeding.

Besides, the Complainant proved that MX records have been set up for the disputed domain name, which would enable the Respondent to send emails under a domain name that is confusingly similar to the Complainant’s mark, such as phishing emails. This underscores the Respondent’s bad faith in both registering and utilizing the disputed domain name.

Finally, and as established in Annex 1 to this Decision, this Panel has determined that the disputed domain name was most likely registered using the name of a third party (a case of identity theft), which further supports the finding of bad faith.

The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element 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 <michelin-onmicrosoft.com> be cancelled.

/Iris Quadrio/ Iris Quadrio Sole Panelist Date: August 25, 2025

identity theft, the Panel has redacted the Respondent’s name from this decision. However, the Panel has attached as Annex 1 to this decision an instruction to the Registrar regarding transfer of the disputed domain name, which includes the name of the Respondent. The Panel has authorized the Center to transmit Annex 1 to the Registrar as part of the order in this proceeding, and has indicated Annex 1 to this decision shall not be published due to the exceptional circumstances of this case. See Banco Bradesco S.A. v. FAST-12785241 Attn. Bradescourgente.net / Name Redacted, WIPO Case No. D2009-1788.