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. Motorbanden Quickservice

Case No. DNL2021-0044

1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is Motorbanden Quickservice, the Netherlands.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <michelinmotorbanden.nl> is registered with SIDN through Hostnet B.V.

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 29, 2021. On July 29, 2021, the Center transmitted by email to SIDN a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 30, 2021, SIDN 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 Dispute Resolution Regulations for .nl Domain Names (the “Regulations”).

In accordance with the Regulations, articles 5.1 and 16.4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on August 25, 2021. In accordance with the Regulations, article 7.1, the due date for Response was September 14, 2021. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on September 16, 2021.

The Center appointed Alfred Meijboom as the panelist in this matter on October 1, 2021. The Panel finds that it was properly constituted. The Panelist has submitted the Statement of Acceptance and Declaration of Impartiality and Independence, as required to ensure compliance with the Regulations, article 9.2.

4. Factual Background

The Complainant is a technology leader in tires for all forms of mobility, and was established in 1889 in France. The Complainant operates 117 production sites in 26 countries, has a commercial presence in 170 countries and 124,000 employees worldwide.

The Complainant is the owner of the following registered word marks, which are valid in the Netherlands:

- European Union trademark MICHELIN with registration number 001791243, registered on October 24, 2001, for goods and services in classes 6, 7, 12, 17, and 28 for, inter alia, expansion joints, couplings, and gaskets;

- European Union trademark MICHELIN with registration number 007333834, registered on May 14, 2009, for goods and services in classes 1, 8, 9, 11, 12, 16, 20, 21, and 28 for, inter alia, antifreeze solutions, hand tools, and inner tubes for pneumatic tires; (the “MICHELIN Marks”).

SIDN informed the Center that the disputed domain name was first registered on October 9, 2012, and that the date of registration of the disputed domain name by the current registrant is December 22, 2016. At the time of the Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a hosting provider’s page.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

The Complainant contends that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MICHELIN Marks as it reproduces these in their entirety with the mere addition of the term “motorbanden” (i.e. “motorcycle tires” in Dutch), which is insufficient to exclude confusing similarity. The Complainant alleges that the term “motorbanden” only serves to enhance the false impression that the disputed domain name is somehow officially related to the Complainant since the term relates to the Complainant’s main field of activity.

The Complainant also alleges that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name as the Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name nor by the name “Michelin”. The Complainant acknowledges that the Respondent is an authorized dealer of the Complainant but asserts that it has never granted permission to the Respondent to register the MICHELIN Marks or to seek registration of any domain name incorporating said trademark. The Complainant further alleges that the Respondent, in order to be able to make a bona fide offering of goods or services should have been at least selling the Complainant’s goods or services via the website under the disputed domain name, while the Respondent rather never used the disputed domain name after its registration. The Complainant further asserts that the disputed domain name associates the MICHELIN Marks with the term “motorbanden”, which the Complainant considers further evidence of the fact that the Respondent wishes to give an overall impression that the disputed domain name is endorsed by the Complainant, which is not and cannot constitute fair use especially as the disputed domain name is not being used in a way that may properly disclose the relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent.

The Complainant asserts that the MICHELIN Marks are well known and have a reputation worldwide, so that it is unlikely that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when registering the disputed domain name, even more so considering the fact that the Respondent indicates its status as an authorized dealer of the Complainant in the Netherlands. The Complainant asserts that the disputed domain name entirely reproduces the MICHELIN Marks and associates it to the generic term “motorbanden” so that bad faith must be found since the disputed domain name is so obviously connected with a well-known trademark registration. The Complainant also contends that the MICHELIN Marks significantly predate the registration of the disputed domain name and that knowledge of the Complainant’s rights at the time of registration of the disputed domain name also constitutes bad faith registration.

The Complainant further notes that it sent the Respondent a cease and desist letter, to which the Respondent initially did not reply, but eventually prompted the reply of the Respondent which asserted that it is an authorized reseller of Complainant, that the disputed domain name was intended to provide information about the Complainant’s goods and that the Respondent would have rights in the disputed domain name since its company name encompasses the expression “motorbanden”, reproduced in the disputed domain name. The Respondent thus refused to transfer the disputed domain name to the Complainant, claiming it would use the same, for an information website on the Complainant’s goods. In this respect, the Complainant observed that the Respondent while registering the disputed domain name, had also registered the domain name <michelinmotorbanden.com>, allegedly for the same purpose.

B. Respondent

In these proceedings, the Respondent has not replied to the Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

Article 10.3 of the Regulations provides that, in the event that a respondent fails to submit a response, the complaint shall be granted, unless the panelist considers it to be without basis in law or fact.

According to article 2.1 of the Regulations, the requested remedy shall be granted if the complainant asserts and establishes each of the following:

(a) that the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to:

(i) a trademark, or trade name, protected under Dutch law in which the complainant has rights; or

(ii) a personal name registered in the General Municipal Register (“gemeentelijke basisadministratie”) of a municipality in The Netherlands, or the name of a Dutch public legal entity or the name of an association or foundation registered in The Netherlands under which the complainant undertakes public activities on a permanent basis; and

(b) that the respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name; and

(c) that the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith.

In view of the fact that the Regulations are substantially similar to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (“UDRP”), it is well established that both cases decided under the Regulations and cases decided under the UDRP may be relevant to the determination of this proceeding (see, e.g., Aktiebolaget Electrolux v. Beuk Horeca B.V., WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0050).

Especially relevant to the current dispute is the case which was decided under the UDRP between the same parties on August 27, 2021, Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Motorbanden Quick Service, WIPO Case No. D2021-2226, in which matter the Complainant’s statements were, in so far as relevant to the decision, the same as those in the current proceeding, whereby the domain name in dispute in WIPO Case No. D2021-2226 is <michelinmotorbanden.com>, which only differs from the disputed domain name by its different Top-Level Domain (“TLD”). The three elements which the complainant needs to show in UDRP cases are the same as those in article 2.1 of the Regulations, except that, as relevant to this dispute, it is sufficient under the Regulations that if the complainant shows that a disputed domain name was either registered or is being used in bad faith, rather than both such elements being shown as required by the UDRP.

In the current proceeding the Complainant alleges that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MICHELIN Marks, just as it asserted in WIPO Case No. D2021-2226. It is established case law under the Regulations that the TLD “.nl” may be disregarded in assessing the similarity between the trademark on the one hand and the disputed domain name on the other hand (see, e.g., Roompot Recreatie Beheer B.V. v. Edoco LTD, WIPO Case No. DNL2008-0008), just as the panel in WIPO Case No. D2021-2226 disregarded the TLD “.com” in the domain name <michelinmotorbanden.com>.

Noting also the panel’s findings on the corresponding facts and allegations submitted by the Complainant in WIPO Case No. D2021-2226, the Panel in the present case finds that the Respondent likewise has engaged in bad faith conduct.

In conclusion, the Panel is satisfied that the Complainant (a) shown that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the MICHELIN Marks, (b) made out an unrebutted prima facie case that the Respondent has no rights to or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, and (c) shown that the disputed domain name has been registered or is being used in bad faith, for which reasons the Panel finds that the Complainant has satisfied the requirement of article 2.1 of the Regulations.

7. Decision

For all the foregoing reasons, in accordance with articles 1 and 14 of the Regulations, the Panel orders that the domain name <michelinmotorbanden.nl> be transferred to the Complainant.

Alfred Meijboom
Panelist
Date: October 15, 2021

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/