Michelinhistory.com

The timeline behind michelinhistory.com

Registration, the decision and the archived record of what this domain actually displayed — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive.

Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.

ARBITRATION AND MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Eric Stehlin, Technology Strategies, LLC Case No. D2025-0701 1. The Parties The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France. The Respondent is Eric Stehlin, Technology Strategies, LLC, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <michelinhistory.com> is registered with CloudFlare, Inc. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 20, 2025. On February 21, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 22, 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 (DATA REDACTED) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 25, 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 February 26, 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”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center formally notified the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on March 4, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 24, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 25, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Luca Barbero as the sole panelist in this matter on March 28, 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 manufacturing company. Founded in 1889 and headquartered in Clermont-Ferrand, France, it is present in 170 countries, has more than 124,000 employees and operates 117 tyre manufacturing facilities and sales agencies in 26 countries. The Complainant also owns and operates the MICHELIN Guide, which was first launched in 1920 in order to help motorists plan their trips, thereby boosting car sales and in turn, tyre purchases. In 1926, the Guide began to award stars for fine dining establishments, initially marking them only with a single star. Five years later, a hierarchy of zero, one, two, and three stars was introduced, and in 1936, the criteria for the starred rankings were published. The Complainant is the owner of several trademark registrations for MICHELIN including the following, as per trademark registration details submitted as annex 4 to the Complaint: - United States trademark registration No. 892045 for MICHELIN (word mark), filed on June 5, 1969, and registered on June 2, 1970, in international class 12; - United States trademark registration No. 4126565 for MICHELIN (word mark), filed on January 19, 2011, and registered on April 10, 2012 in international classes 36, 37 and 39. The Complainant is also the owner of the domain name <michelin.com>, which was registered on December 1, 1993, and is used by the Complainant to promote its services under the trademark MICHELIN. The disputed domain name <michelinhistory.com> was registered on December 11, 2023, and is not pointing to an active website. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. Notably, the Complainant indicates that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the trademark MICHELIN in which the Complainant has rights as it reproduces the trademark in its entirety with the mere addition of the term “history” and the generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.com”. The Complainant states that the Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since: i) the Respondent is in no way affiliated with the Complainant nor has it ever been authorized by the Complainant to use its registered trademarks or apply for any domain name incorporating said trademarks; ii) the disputed domain name is not used in connection with a bona fide offering of goods and services as the domain name resolves to an inactive page; iii) in view of the identity of the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s famous mark, the Respondent cannot reasonably pretend it was intending to develop a legitimate activity through the disputed domain name; and iv) the Respondent has failed to reply to the cease-and-desist letters sent by the Complainant via email. page 3 The Complainant submits that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name in bad faith because: i) it is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant when it registered the disputed domain name as the Complainant is well known throughout the world, including the United States, where the Respondent is allegedly located; ii) in view the composition of the disputed domain name, reproducing the MICHELIN mark in its entirety, the Respondent could not be unaware of the Complainant’s trademark; iii) the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark registrations significantly predate the registration date of the disputed domain name; iv) a quick trademark search for “michelin” or a search via Google or any other search engine using the keyword “michelin” would have revealed the existence of the Complainant and its trademark; and v) given the Complainant’s goodwill and renown, the Respondent could simply not have chosen the disputed domain name for any reason other than to deliberately cause confusion amongst Internet users as to its source in order to take unfair advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill and reputation. The Complainant also submits that the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith. The Complainant asserts that reproducing a famous trademark in a domain name in order to attract Internet users to an inactive website cannot be regarded as fair use or use in good faith. The Complainant further contends that it is likely that the Respondent has registered the disputed domain name to prevent the Complainant from using its trademark in the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings According to paragraph 15(a) of the Rules: “A Panel shall decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable.” Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy directs that the Complainant must prove each of the following: (i) that the disputed domain name registered by the Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the Complainant has rights; (ii) that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) that the disputed domain name has been 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. Indeed, the Complainant has provided evidence of valid trademark registrations for MICHELIN. 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 the term “history” may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such term 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. page 4 In addition, the gTLD “.com” can be disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test, being a standard registration requirement. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. Therefore, 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. 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. According to the records, there is no relationship between the Complainant and the Respondent, and the Complainant has not authorized the Respondent to register or use its trademark or the disputed domain name. Moreover, there is no element from which the Panel could infer that the Respondent has rights over the disputed domain name, or that the Respondent might be commonly known by the disputed domain name. Furthermore, there is no evidence showing that the Respondent might have used or made preparations to use the disputed domain name – which is not resolving to an active website – in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use without the intention to misleadingly divert the consumers or to tarnish the Complainant’s trademark. Therefore, 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 the present case, the Panel finds that, i) in light of the prior registration and use of the trademark MICHELIN by the Complainant in several countries, including the United States where the Respondent is based; ii) the promotion of the Complainant’s trademark online via the website “www.michelin.com”; and iii) the well-known character of the Complainant’s trademark worldwide, the Respondent knew or should have known of the Complainant’s trademark at the time of registration of the disputed domain name. WIPO Overview, section 3.2.2. The disputed domain name does not resolve to an active 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 notes the distinctiveness and reputation of page 5 the Complainant’s trademark, the composition of the disputed domain name, that the disputed domain name has been registered for over a year without any explanation why it has not been put into use, and the Respondent’s failure to submit a response to provide any evidence of actual or contemplated good-faith use, and finds that, in the circumstances of this case, the passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Therefore, the Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy as well. 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 <michelinhistory.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Luca Barbero/ Luca Barbero Sole Panelist Date: April 11, 2025

Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.