Michelin-eushop.com

The timeline behind michelin-eushop.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. Lin Lin Case No. D2026-0460 1. The Parties The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France. The Respondent is Lin Lin, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <michelin-eushop.com> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 4, 2026. On February 4, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On February 6, 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 (Super Privacy Service LTD c/o Dynadot) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 6, 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 February 9, 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 February 10, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 2, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 3, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Indrek Eelmets as the sole panelist in this matter on March 6, 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 leading tire company worldwide, established in 1889 in France. The Complainant has more than 114,000 employees, it operates 69 tire manufacturing facilities and sales agencies in 17 countries. The Complainant uses the Michelin brand, which has been ranked eighth among the world’s 100 most reputable companies and No.1 in the automotive industry (2019 Global RepTrak Survey). The Complainant is also highly involved in travel publications (maps, guides, atlases, computerized products), including the famous Guide Michelin, and vehicle racing (Formula One and Motorcycle Grand Prix, Superbike) and rallies. The Complainant is in particular the owner of the following trademark registrations: - International trademark MICHELIN, Reg. No 771031, dated June 11, 2001, duly renewed and designating inter alia China, Russian Federation, Iceland, Spain, Ukraine, Singapore, and Viet Nam; - International trademark MICHELIN, Reg. No 1713161, dated June 13, 2022, designating inter alia Australia, India, Japan, Republic of Korea, and Singapore; and - United States of America trademark MICHELIN, Reg. No. 892045, registered on June 2, 1970, duly renewed. In addition, the Complainant is the owner of the domain name <michelin.com>, registered on December 1, 1993, and used to promote its goods and services The disputed domain name was registered on December 2, 2025. Before the filing of the Complaint, the Complainant established that the disputed domain name directed towards a website which presents itself as an e-commerce platform purporting to offer Michelin-branded products, including tires and other vehicle- related items, and uses visuals and product references directly associated with the Complainant. The Complainant sent a blocking request to the Registrar and a deactivation notice to the hosting provider. Following the deactivation request, the hosting provider forwarded the complaint to the website operator, after which the disputed domain name resolved to a website purportedly offering shoes for sale and thereafter was redirected to an error page, a status that remains in place to the date of this Decision. 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 it has satisfied each of the elements required under the Policy for a transfer of the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the trademark. The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests with respect to the disputed domain name. The disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. Firstly, the disputed domain name comprises the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark in its entirety, associated with the geographic term “eu” and commercial term “shop”. The additional elements do not serve to distinguish the disputed domain name from the Complainant’s trademark. page 3 Secondly, the Complainant asserts that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Respondent is neither affiliated with nor authorized by the Complainant to use the MICHELIN trademark, and the Complainant’s trademark rights predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant further argues that the Respondent has not used, nor made demonstrable preparations to use, the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services. Instead, the disputed domain name was used to host a website falsely presenting itself as an official MICHELIN online store using unauthorized materials, then redirected to a shoe-selling site, and ultimately to an error page. Such use, the Complainant contends, cannot be considered bona fide. Finally, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith, emphasizing the well-known global reputation of the MICHELIN trademark, which makes it implausible that the Respondent was unaware of it at the time of registration. According to the Complainant, the disputed domain name was used to host a website falsely presenting itself as an official MICHELIN e- commerce platform, and later redirected to unrelated commercial content (shoe sales), demonstrating an intent to exploit the trademark to attract Internet users for commercial gain. The subsequent deactivation of the website further supports an inference of bad faith. The Complainant also contends that the Respondent failed to conduct basic trademark or online searches, which would have revealed the Complainant’s rights, and that the Respondent sought to capitalize on confusion, divert traffic, and potentially prevent the Complainant from reflecting its mark in the disputed domain name. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 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 term here, “-eushop”, 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. page 4 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 Respondent does not appear to be commonly known by the disputed domain name, and previously used it in connection with a website purporting to offer Michelin-branded products by displaying visuals and product references directly associated with the Complainant. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity here, claimed prior use as passing off, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. After the Complainant’s deactivation request, the disputed domain name is no longer in active use. 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 that, given the Complainant’s numerous trademark registrations for, and its worldwide reputation in, the mark MICHELIN, it is highly unlikely that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name without prior knowledge of the Complainant’s mark. Paragraph 4(b) of the Policy sets out a list of non-exhaustive circumstances that may indicate that a domain name was registered and used in bad faith. Based on the available record, the Respondent previously used the disputed domain name to intentionally attempt to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s mark. Only after the Complainant’s deactivation request did the website associated with the disputed domain name become inactive. Panels have found that the non-use of a domain name would not by itself prevent a finding of bad faith under the doctrine of passive holding. To the contrary, in looking at the totality of circumstances in each case, panels have found that the registration and non-use of a domain name can still constitute bad faith for purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.3. Having reviewed the available record, the Panel notes the distinctiveness and reputation of the Complainant’s mark, and the composition of the disputed domain name, and finds that in the circumstances of this case the current passive holding of the disputed domain name does not prevent a finding of bad faith under the Policy. Having reviewed the record, the Panel finds the Respondent’s registration and use of the disputed domain name constitutes bad faith under the Policy. The Panel finds that the Complainant has established the third element of the Policy. page 5 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 <michelin-eushop.com> be transferred to the Complainant. /Indrek Eelmets/ Indrek Eelmets Sole Panelist Date: March 20, 2026

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