Appmichelin.com

The timeline behind appmichelin.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. Felipe Gabriel Cardoso Case No. D2026-0304 1. The Parties The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France. The Respondent is Felipe Gabriel Cardoso, Brazil. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <appmichelin.com> is registered with Hostinger Operations, UAB (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on January 26, 2026. On January 26, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On January 28, 2026, 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 (Unknown) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on January 28, 2026, 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 January 29, 2026. 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 January 30, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was February 19, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on February 20, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Knud Wallberg as the sole panelist in this matter on February 25, 2026. 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 French corporation established in 1889. It is a leading global tire company dedicated to designing and distributing tires, and related services, and mobility solutions, as well as providing maps and travel guides. It employs more than 124,000 people worldwide and operates 117 tire manufacturing facilities and sales agencies in 26 countries. The Complainant entered into Brazil in 1927 and now has several subsidiaries in the country. The Complainant offers and supplies goods and services under its MICHELIN trademark (the “Mark”), and it is the proprietor of a number of trademark registrations for the Mark around the world, including International Trademark Registration No. 1595635, registered on March 26, 2021, designating among others Brazil, and covering goods in class 10, and Brazilian trademark Registration No. 917585291, registered on January 7, 2020, and covering goods in class 12. The Complainant also operates, among other domain names, <michelin.com>, registered on December 1, 1993, and <michelin.com.br>, registered on April 27, 1997. The disputed domain name was registered on November 18, 2025, and at the time the Complaint was filed resolved to a webpage at “appmichelin.com/auth”, which displayed a login interface featuring the Mark, and which appeared to operate as an authentication gateway. 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 contends that the disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to its Mark, reproducing the Mark in its entirety with only the addition of the generic term “app”, and the generic Top-Level Domain “.com”, which does not avoid a finding of confusing similarity. It states that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name, is neither affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant, and is not commonly known by the name “MICHELIN”. The Complainant further asserts that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith. The Complainant thus submits that it is inconceivable that the Respondent did not have the Mark in mind at the time of registration of the disputed domain name, just as the fact that the Respondent has used the disputed domain name to redirect Internet users to a login interface entitled “MICHELIN APP – Sistema Premium de Sinais”, which constitutes bad faith use. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. page 3 6. Discussion and Findings 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 Select UDRP Questions (“WIPO Overview 3.1”), section 1.7. The Complainant has shown rights in respect of a trademark or service mark for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. 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 3.1, section 1.7. Although the addition of other terms, here, “app”, 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 3.1, section 1.8. 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 that 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 3.1, 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. 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 notes the strong international reputation of the Complainant and its Mark, as well as the composition of the disputed domain name, such that the Panel finds the Respondent most likely registered the disputed domain name with prior knowledge of the Complainant and the Complainant’s Mark. page 4 Furthermore, the disputed domain name has been used to redirect to a website, which displayed a login interface prominently featuring the Mark, which appeared to operate as an authentication gateway. The Panel finds that such use is in an indication of bad faith use. Paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established 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 disputed domain name <appmichelin.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Knud Wallberg/ Knud Wallberg Sole Panelist Date: March 9, 2026

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