À propos de la propriété intellectuelle Formation en propriété intellectuelle Sensibilisation à la propriété intellectuelle La propriété intellectuelle pour… Propriété intellectuelle et… Propriété intellectuelle et… Information relative aux brevets et à la technologie Information en matière de marques Information en matière de dessins et modèles industriels Information en matière d’indications géographiques Information en matière de protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Lois, traités et jugements dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Ressources relatives à la propriété intellectuelle Rapports sur la propriété intellectuelle Protection des brevets Protection des marques Protection des dessins et modèles industriels Protection des indications géographiques Protection des obtentions végétales (UPOV) Règlement extrajudiciaire des litiges Solutions opérationnelles à l’intention des offices de propriété intellectuelle Paiement de services de propriété intellectuelle Décisions et négociations Coopération en matière de développement Appui à l’innovation Partenariats public-privé L’Organisation Travailler avec nous Responsabilité Brevets Marques Dessins et modèles industriels Indications géographiques Droit d’auteur Secrets d’affaires Académie de l’OMPI Ateliers et séminaires Journée mondiale de la propriété intellectuelle Magazine de l’OMPI Sensibilisation Études de cas et exemples de réussite Actualités dans le domaine de la propriété intellectuelle Prix de l’OMPI Entreprises Universités Peuples autochtones Instances judiciaires Ressources génétiques, savoirs traditionnels et expressions culturelles traditionnelles Économie Égalité des genres Santé mondiale Changement climatique Politique en matière de concurrence Objectifs de développement durable Application Technologies de pointe Applications mobiles Sport Tourisme PATENTSCOPE Analyse de brevets Classification internationale des brevets Programme ARDI – Recherche pour l’innovation Programme ASPI – Information spécialisée en matière de brevets Base de données mondiale sur les marques Madrid Monitor Base de données Article 6ter Express Classification de Nice Classification de Vienne Base de données mondiale sur les dessins et modèles Bulletin des dessins et modèles internationaux Base de données Hague Express Classification de Locarno Base de données Lisbon Express Base de données mondiale sur les marques relative aux indications géographiques Base de données PLUTO sur les variétés végétales Base de données GENIE Traités administrés par l’OMPI WIPO Lex – lois, traités et jugements en matière de propriété intellectuelle Normes de l’OMPI Statistiques de propriété intellectuelle WIPO Pearl (Terminologie) Publications de l’OMPI Profils nationaux Centre de connaissances de l’OMPI Série de rapports de l’OMPI consacrés aux tendances technologiques Indice mondial de l’innovation Rapport sur la propriété intellectuelle dans le monde PCT – Le système international des brevets ePCT Budapest – Le système international de dépôt des micro-organismes Madrid – Le système international des marques eMadrid Article 6ter (armoiries, drapeaux, emblèmes nationaux) La Haye – Le système international des dessins et modèles industriels eHague Lisbonne – Le système d’enregistrement international des indications géographiques eLisbon UPOV PRISMA Médiation Arbitrage Procédure d’expertise Litiges relatifs aux noms de domaine Accès centralisé aux résultats de la recherche et de l’examen (WIPO CASE) Service d’accès numérique aux documents de priorité (DAS) WIPO Pay Compte courant auprès de l’OMPI Assemblées de l’OMPI Comités permanents Calendrier des réunions Documents officiels de l’OMPI Plan d’action de l’OMPI pour le développement Assistance technique Institutions de formation en matière de propriété intellectuelle Mesures d’appui concernant la COVID-19 Stratégies nationales de propriété intellectuelle Assistance en matière d’élaboration des politiques et de formulation de la législation Pôle de coopération Centres d’appui à la technologie et à l’innovation (CATI) Transfert de technologie Programme d’aide aux inventeurs WIPO GREEN Initiative PAT-INFORMED de l’OMPI Consortium pour des livres accessibles L’OMPI pour les créateurs WIPO ALERT États membres Observateurs Directeur général Activités par unité administrative Bureaux extérieurs Avis de vacance d’emploi Achats Résultats et budget Rapports financiers Audit et supervision

WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center

ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION

Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Anshul Goyal, Guava Softs Pvt Ltd

Case No. D2016-2395

1. The Parties

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

Respondent is Anshul Goyal, Guava Softs Pvt Ltd of Ludhiana, Punjab, India.

2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name <bibendum.xyz> (the “Domain Name”) is registered with InternetX GmbH (the “Registrar”).

3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on November 28, 2016. On November 28, 2016, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the Domain Name. On November 30, 2016, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that 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 Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on December 7, 2016. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was December 27, 2016. Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified Respondent’s default on December 29, 2016.

The Center appointed Martin Schwimmer as the sole panelist in this matter on January 11, 2017. 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

BIBENDUM (the “Trademark”) is the name of the Michelin Man, the logo of Complainant Michelin, the well−known tire company. Complainant has registered and used the BIBENDUM word mark in relation to its logo, all over the world, including India, the location of Respondent. For instance, Complainant is the owner of Indian Trademark Registration number 1331614 BIBENDUM (word mark), registered with filing date January 12, 2005. Respondent publicly offered the Domain Name for sale after receiving a demand letter from Complainant.

5. Parties’ Contentions

A. Complainant

Complainant is Michelin, the well-known tire company. Its famous logo depicts a cartoon man made out of tires. Complainant asserts that it is one of the most well-known logos in the world. While the logo is primarily known as the Michelin Man, the character is also known as BIBENDUM, because an early advertisement portraying the Michelin Man bore the Latin words “Nunc est Bibendum” (“Now is the time for drinking”). Complainant owns registrations for BIBENDUM in many countries, including India, which registrations were obtained in India as early as 1999, many years prior to the registration date of the Domain Name.

Complainant utilizes BIBENDUM as a trademark for its primary tire products, as well as for ancillary services, such as restaurant and tourism services. The history of the Michelin Man is an integral part of Complainant’s branding efforts, and therefore the BIBENDUM name is widely promoted in the telling of that history.

Respondent has no relationship of any manner to Complainant.

When Complainant learned of the Domain Name, it did not resolve to an active webpage. After attempting to resolve the matter amicably, Complainant sent Respondent a demand letter asserting its rights in the BIBENDUM trademark. At that point, the Domain Name was listed for sale on a domain name sales website.

B. Respondent

Respondent did not reply to Complainant’s contentions.

6. Discussion and Findings

A. Identical or Confusingly Similar

Complainant has established ownership of the BIBENDUM trademark by providing registration of its India and International Registrations. Complainant has shown long time usage of the Trademark worldwide and in India.

Respondent’s Domain Name incorporates Complainant’s BIBENDUM trademark in its entirety, as well as the non-distinctive “.xyz” suffix. It is the consensus view of UDRP panels to usually disregard the generic Top−Level Domain (“gTLD”) suffix. The Panel holds that pursuant to paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy, the Domain Name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s BIBENDUM mark.

B. Rights or Legitimate Interests

The second ground to be demonstrated by Complainant, according to the provisions of the Policy, is Respondent’s absence of any rights or legitimate interests in the Domain Name, per paragraph 4(c) of the Policy.

Previous UDRP panels have consistently held that it is sufficient for a complainant to prove a prima facie case that the respondent does not hold rights or legitimate interests in the domain name (see Croatia Airlines d.d. v. Modern Empire Internet Ltd., WIPO Case No. D2003-0455; and Belupo d.d. v. WACHEM d.o.o., WIPO Case No. D2004-0110). Once a prima facie case is shown, the burden of production shifts to the respondent to come forward with appropriate allegations or evidence demonstrating its rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Panel is satisfied that Respondent has no connection or affiliation with Complainant and has not received any license or consent to use the BIBENDUM trademark in a domain name or in any other manner. Complainant alleges that there is no such connection here. The Panel notes that Respondent’s name does not reflect the Domain Name. The Panel finds there is no evidence of legitimate noncommercial or fair use of the Domain Name.

In addition, Respondent has not submitted any reply to Complainant’s contentions.

Therefore, in light of Complainant’s prima facie case, unrebutted by Respondent, the Panel finds that Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith

Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out four circumstances which, without limitation, shall be evidence of the registration and use of the Domain Name in bad faith, namely:

(i) circumstances indicating that Respondent has registered or acquired the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of selling, renting, or otherwise transferring the Domain Name registration to Complainant who is the owner of the trademark or service mark or to a competitor of Complainant, for valuable consideration in excess of Respondent’s documented out-of-pocket costs directly related to the Domain Name; or

(ii) Respondent has registered the Domain Name in order to prevent the owner of the trademark or service mark from reflecting the mark in a corresponding domain name, provided that Respondent has engaged in a pattern of such conduct; or

(iii) Respondent has registered the Domain Name primarily for the purpose of disrupting the business of a competitor; or

(iv) by using the Domain Name, Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to Respondent’s website or other on-line location, by creating a likelihood of confusion with Complainant’s mark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of the Respondent’s website or location or of a product.

While Complainant’s logo is primarily referred to as the Michelin Man (which name itself has been the subject of previous UDRP proceedings), Complainant has submitted extensive evidence of promotion of its BIBENDUM mark such that its mark is sufficiently established such that, coupled with the absence of any other evidence in the record to the contrary, it is fair to presume that Respondent registered the Domain Name with prior knowledge of Complainant’s rights. Such evidence includes documentation of Complainant’s registration and use of the BIBENDUM mark, worldwide and in India, where Respondent is located.

The Panel notes that, subsequent to receipt of Complainant’s demand letter, Respondent offered the Domain Name for sale on a website that specializes in selling domain names.

It is well settled that the passive holding of a domain name reflecting a trademark, in combination with an offer of sale of that domain name, may satisfy the concept of bad faith registration and use.

For the reasons cited above, the Panel finds for Complainant on 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 Domain Name, <bibendum.xyz> be transferred to Complainant.

Martin Schwimmer
Sole Panelist
Date: January 13, 2017

https://www3.wipo.int/contact/fr/area.jsp?area=arbitration https://www.wipo.int/pressroom/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/disclaim.html https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/privacy-policy/ https://www.wipo.int/fr/web/accessibility/ https://www.wipo.int/tools/fr/sitemap.html https://www3.wipo.int/newsletters/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/podcasts/fr/ https://www.wipo.int/news/fr/