Westmore · UDRP DecisionMichelinlinensupply.com
The Panel ordered transfer of <michelinlinensupply.com>. It found the domain confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark because the added words “linen” and “supply” did not avoid confusing similarity. The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because it was unauthorized and used the domain for a webpage advertising its own services. Given the worldwide reputation of MICHELIN, the Panel found that the Respondent likely knew of the mark and intentionally used the domain to attract Internet users for commercial gain through confusion.
The timeline behind michelinlinensupply.com
Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.
Westmore reconstructs the full history behind michelinlinensupply.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
The case illustrates a straightforward application of the UDRP where a well-known mark was incorporated in full, additional dictionary terms did not dispel confusing similarity, and the domain was used to promote the registrant’s own commercial services. The commercial landing page, absence of authorization, reputation of the mark, and lack of any rebuttal aligned across all three elements.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
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
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around michelinlinensupply.com
The decision is only the record. Westmore connects it to the cases, authorities, panelists, parties and domain evidence surrounding it.
A short, grounded explanation drawn only from this decision's record — not legal advice or a prediction.
Grounded in the Westmore record for this decision. Research/informational only — not legal advice or a prediction of any outcome.
The decision is only the beginning.
You've seen what happened. Now discover the deeper intelligence behind the case, the panelist, the parties and the authorities that matter.
Go beyond the public record: see how this case has been cited, find comparable decisions, analyze the panelist and apply the relevant authorities to your Matter.
Westmore Professional · $395/month
Research with UDRP IntelligenceWestmore AI drafts an attorney-review-ready UDRP response from your facts, grounded in the exact panel and closest precedent.
$895 one-time per matter · no subscription required. Self-help drafting aid — not legal advice.
Build your responseWestmore UDRP records draw on WIPO-indexed decisions and are provided for research and informational purposes only. Not legal advice, a clearance opinion, or a prediction of any outcome.