Westmore · UDRP DecisionMichelinfoodserve.com + 5 more domains
The Panel ordered transfer of all six disputed domain names. It found them confusingly similar to the Complainant’s MICHELIN mark because each incorporated the mark in full, with only the additional terms “food” and/or “serve.” The Respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests because the record showed no authorization, corresponding trademark rights, or evidence that the Respondent was commonly known by the names; three domains had been used for alleged impersonation and later became inactive, while the other three directed users to unrelated software-related content. Bad faith was established from the well-known character of the MICHELIN mark, the domains’ compositions, their impersonating or diversionary uses, and, for the inactive domains, the circumstances supporting passive holding in bad faith.
The timeline behind michelinfoodserve.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 michelinfoodserve.com — from public RDAP and the Internet Archive — as part of UDRP Intelligence:
How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.
The case illustrates how coordinated registration of several domains combining a famous mark with sector-related wording can support findings across all three UDRP elements. It also shows that different uses within one domain portfolio—impersonating content, unrelated third-party redirection, and later inactivity—may each weigh against the respondent when the overall record demonstrates awareness of the mark and an intent to exploit confusion.
Result of record. The panel's reasoning and decisive facts behind each element are in the Intelligence dossier below.
ARBITRATION AN D MEDIATION CENTER ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Phil Howard, Kithcen 47 Case No. D2025-4141 1. The Parties The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin, France, represented by Tm ark Conseils, France. The Respondent is Phil Howard, Kithcen 47, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The Disputed Domain Names <michelinfoodserve.com>, <michelinf oodserve.net>, <michelinserve.com>, <michelinserve.net>, <servemichelinfoodserve.com>, and <servemichelinf oodserve.net> (the “Disputed Domain Names”) are registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Reg istrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on October 9, 2025. On October 10, 2025, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request f or registrar verif ication in connection with the Disputed Domain Names. On October 10, 2025, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact inf ormation f or the Disputed Domain Names which differed from the named Respondent (UNKOWN) and contact inf ormation in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on October 13, 2025, providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant f iled an amended Complaint on October 16, 2025. The Center verif ied that the Complaint together with the amended Complaint satisf ied the f ormal requirements of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy” or “UDRP”), the Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Rules”), and the WIPO Supplemental Rules f or Unif orm Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Supplemental Rules”). In accordance with the Rules, paragraphs 2 and 4, the Center f ormally notif ied the Respondent of the Complaint, and the proceedings commenced on October 17, 2025. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date f or Response was November 6, 2025. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notif ied the Respondent’s def ault on November 10, 2025. page 2 The Center appointed Gabriela Kennedy as the sole panelist in this matter on November 13, 2025. The Panel f inds 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, founded in 1889, is a corporation organized under the laws of France that operates a business with a presence in many countries selling tires, and the authoritative Michelin Guide that ranks f ine dining establishments by awarding “Michelin Stars”. The Complainant has a strong reputation in the f ield of tire manuf acturing for cars, trucks, motorcycles, and planes. It is also highly involved in travel publications (maps, guides, atlases, computerized products) and vehicle racing (Formula One and Motorcycle Grand Prix, Superbike) and rallies. While the Michelin brand is well-known for its tires, the Complainant is also f amous f or its annual Michelin Guide. The Complainant is also famous for its Michelin Star rating system which grades restaurants on their quality. The Complainant owns various word and f igurative trademarks f or the MICHELIN mark. The relevant trademark registrations include, inter alia, the International Trademark Registration No. 1254506 f or MICHELIN in Classes 9, 35, 38, 39, 41, and 42 registered on December 10, 2014 designated in Japan, No rway, Türkiye, and Switzerland, and the European Trademark Registration No. 013558366 f o r MICHELIN in Classes 9, 35, 38, 39, 41, and 42 registered on April 17, 2015 (the “Complainant’s Trademark”). All of the Disputed Domain Names were registered on October 6, 2025, many years af ter the Complainant registered the Complainant’s Trademark. According to the Complainant, at the time of f iling of the Complaint: - the Disputed Domain Names <michelinf oodserve.com>, <michelinserve.com>, and <michelinserve.net>, resolved to websites displaying the Complainant’s Trademark and a logo “ ” similar to the Complainant’s mascot Michelin Man (Bibendum). The background of each of these websites display an image of culinary activities. - the Disputed Domain Names <michelinf oodserve.net>, <servemichelinf oodserve.com>, and <servemichelinfoodserve.net> resolved to websites advertising an organization named “Processing”, which invited Internet users to make donation to “Processing Foundation” to support software development, education, f ellowships, and community events. At the time of the rendering of this Decision: - the Disputed Domain Names <michelinf oodserve.com>, <michelinserve.com>, and <michelinserve.net> resolved to inactive websites. - the Disputed Domain Names <michelinf oodserve.net>, <servemichelinf oodserve.com>, and <servemichelinfoodserve.net> resolved to a website featuring software programming content. Clicking embedded links on that website redirects users to the web site “www.processing.org”, which promotes the “Processing” software and invites donations to the Processing Foundation to support sof tware development, education, f ellowships, and community events. page 3 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant The Complainant contends that it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy f or a transf er of the Disputed Domain Names. Notably, the Complainant contends that: (a) The Disputed Domain Names are confusingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark. The Disputed Domain Names all wholly incorporate the Complainant’s Trademark. The mere addition of the terms such as “f ood” and “serve” do not negate a f inding of conf using similarity. The addition of the descriptive terms “f ood” and “serve” in combination with the Complainant’s Trademark reinf orces the risk of conf usion in the minds of Internet users as they are directly related to the Complainant’s business. The addition of the generic top-level domain (“g TLD”), such as “.com” and “.net”, should be disregarded when determining whether a Disputed Domain Name is conf usingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark. (b ) The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. The Complainant has not authorized any third-party to identif y itself to the public as the Complainant’s Trademark or the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondent has no legitimate reason to incorporate the Complainant’s Trademark in the Disputed Domain Names. The f act that three of the Disputed Domain Names resolved to websites that are similar to the Complainant’s of f icial website and displayed the Complainant’s Trademark and the Complainant’s well-known Michelin Man (Bibendum) shows that the Respondent was well aware of the Complainant’s activities and the Complainant’s Trademark. The Respondent has taken advantage of the Complainant’s commercial interest in the Complainant’s Trademark by registering and using the Disputed Domain Names. (c) The Respondent has registered the Disputed Domain Names and are using them in bad f aith. Given the well-known nature of the Complainant’s Trademark, the Respondent must have been f ully aware of the existence of the Complainant’s Trademark when the Respondent registered and used the Disputed Domain Names. Furthermore, the contact information provided by the Respondent when he registered the Disputed Domain Names appears to be fanciful and f alse which is f urther evidence of bad f aith. The Respondent of several completed and ongoing UDRP proceedings (e.g. Compagnie Generale des Etablissements Michelin v. Phil Howard, Kithcen 47, WIPO Case No . D2025-3315, and Compagnie Generale des Etablissements Michelin v. Phil Howard, WIPO Case No . D2025-2532) and has without authorization registered a number of domain names which reproduce the Complainant’s Trademark in order to mislead Internet users. The Respondent’s pattern of conduct in registering domain names that include the Complainant’s Trademark is to prevent the Complainant from reflecting the Complainant’s Trad emark in a corresponding domain name. Three of the Disputed Domain Names resolved to websites which displayed the Complainant’s Trademark and the Complainant’s mascot Michelin Man (Bibendum) to falsely impersonate the Complainant and to take advantage of the Complainant’s goodwill and reputation to divert traffic to the Respondent’s websites. The other three of the Disputed Domain Names resolved to websites specializing in software, which capitalized on the Complainant’s goodwill and diverted traffic towards other websites. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 4 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant is required to prove each of the f ollowing three elements: (i) the Disputed Domain Names are identical or conf usingly similar to 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 Names; and (iii) the Disputed Domain Names have been registered and are being used by the Respondent in bad f aith. A. Identical or Confusingly Similar It is well accepted that the f irst element f unctions 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 Names. 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 Complainant’s Trademark is reproduced within each of the Disputed Domain Names. Furthermore, the gTLD in this case “.com” and “.net” may be disregarded f or the purposes of assessing conf using similarity under the f irst element. Accordingly, the each of the Disputed Domain Names is conf usingly similar to the Complainant’s Trademark f or the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.11.1. Although the addition of other terms (here, “food” and “serve”) may bear on the assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel f inds the addition of such terms does not prevent a f inding of conf using similarity between each of the Disputed Domain Names and the Complainant’s Trademark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 1.8. The Panel f inds the f irst 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 of ten 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 f orward 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 f ails to come f orward with such relevant evidence, the complainant is deemed to have satisf ied the second element. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.1. The Panel notes that there is no evidence to show that the Respondent has trademark rights corresponding to any of the Disputed Domain Names, or that the Respondent has become commonly known by the any of the Disputed Domain Names. The Panel f urther notes that the Complainant has provided no license or authorization of any kind to the Respondent to use the Complainant’s Trademark or to apply f or or use any domain name incorporating the Complainant’s Trademark. page 5 The Respondent purportedly used the websites in connection with three disputed domain names (namely, <michelinfoodserve.com>, <michelinserve.com>, and <michelinserve.net>) to impersonate or pass itself of f as the Complainant by purportedly featuring the Complainant’s Trademark and a logo highly resembling the Complainant’s mascot Michelin Man (Bibendum). The Respondent would likely not have adopted the Complainant’s Trademark if not f or the purpose of creating an impression that these Disputed Domain Names are associated with, or originate from the Complainant. These web sites attempt to divert business away f rom the Complainant while capitalizing on the goodwill associated with the Complainant’s Trademark. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, in this case claimed impersonation or passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 2.13.1. The Panel notes that at the time of rendering of this Decision, each of these Disputed Domain Names (namely, <michelinfoodserve.com>, <michelinserve.com>, and <michelinserve.net>) resolved to an inactive website. Furthermore, the Respondent has not provided any evidence of ongoing bona fide use of these Disputed Domain Names, nor any demonstrable preparations to use them in connection with a bona f ide offering of goods or services. Accordingly, the current passive holding of these Disputed Domain Names weighs against a f inding of rights or legitimate interests. With regard to the other Disputed Domain Names (namely, <michelinf oodserve.net>, <servemichelinfoodserve.com>, and <servemichelinf oodserve.net>), at the time of the rendering of this Decision these Disputed Domain Names all redirected to a website showing details of software programming and solutions. By clicking the links embedded in that website, Internet users would be redirected to another website “www.processing.org” promoting the “Processing” sof tware and inviting Internet users to support them by making a donation to the Processing Foundation for software development, education, f ellowship and community events. By redirecting Internet users to unrelated third-party websites, the Respondent seeks to capitalise on the goodwill attached to the Complainant’s Trademark and divert internet traf f ic away f rom the Complainant. Furthermore, the reproduction of the Complainant’s Trademark together with other terms, such as “food” and “serve”, which directly relate to the Complainant’s business, also leads to a risk of implied af f iliation as the Disputed Domain Names ef f ectively impersonate or suggest sponsorship or endorsement by the Complainant. See section 2.5.1 of the WIPO Overview 3.0. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel finds the Complainant has established a prima f acie case that the Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s prima f acie showing and has not come f orward with any relevant evidence demonstrating rights or legitimate interests in the Disputed Domain Names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Panel f inds the second element of the Policy has been established. C. Registered and Used in Bad Faith The Panel notes that, f or 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 f aith. In the present case, the Panel notes that the it is difficult to conceive of any plausible use of the Disputed Domain Names that would amount to good f aith use, given that each of the Disputed Domain Names reproduces the Complainant’s Trademark in its entirety and incorporates other descriptive terms (such as “f ood” and/or “serve”) that are directly related to the Complainant’s business. Three of the Disputed Domain Names (namely, <michelinfoodserve.com>, <michelinserve.com>, and <michelinserve.net>) purportedly resolved to websites which impersonated the Complainant by featuring the Complainant’s Trademark and a sign similar to the Complainant’s mascot Michelin Man (Bibendum). The Panel f inds the Respondent registered these Disputed Domain Names to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s Trademark. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed impersonation/passing off, constitutes bad f aith. WIPO Overview 3.0, section 3.4. page 6 With respect to the other three Disputed Domain Names (namely, <michelinf oodserve.net>, <servemichelinfoodserve.com>, and <servemichelinfoodserve.net>), the Panel notes that these Disputed Domain Names resolved to websites which provide information on software development and programming and invite donation to “Processing Foundation”. The Respondent has registered and has been using these Disputed Domain Names to mislead and divert Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of conf usion with the Complainant’s Trademark as to the source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement of its websites. Panels have previously held that a finding of bad faith can be established where a complainant’s trademark is shown to be well known or in wide use at the time of registration of the disputed domain name (see LEGO Juris A/S v. store24hour, WIPO Case No . D2013-0091). The Respondent must have been aware of the Complainant and the Complainant’s Trademark when registering and using the Disputed Domain Names given the well-known nature of the Complainant’s Trademark and the fact that it was put into use well bef ore the Respondent registered the Disputed Domain Names. The Panel notes that at the time of rendering of this Decision, three of the Disputed Domain Names (namely, <michelinfoodserve.com>, <michelinserve.com>, and <michelinserve.net>) now resolve to inactive websites. Panels have f ound that the non-use of a domain name would not prevent a f inding of bad f aith 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 the Complainant’s Trademark, and the composition of these Disputed Domain Names, the prior use of these Disputed Domain Names in connection with impersonation websites, and the Respondent’s failure to file a response, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the passive holding of these Disputed Domain Names does not prevent a f inding of bad f aith under the Policy. The Panel f inds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. 7. Decision For the f oregoing reasons, in accordance with paragraphs 4(i) of the Policy and 15 of the Rules, the Panel orders that the Disputed Domain Names <michelinf oodserve.com>, <michelinf oodserve.net>, <michelinserve.com>, <michelinserve.net>, <servemichelinf oodserve.com>, and <servemichelinf oodserve.net> be transf erred to the Complainant. /Gabriela Kennedy/ Gabriela Kennedy Sole Panelist Date: December 1, 2025
Source of record: WIPO . Reproduced for research; WIPO is the authoritative source.
What Westmore sees around michelinfoodserve.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.