Michelintastecuisine.com, Michelintastecuisine.net

The timeline behind michelintastecuisine.com

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

How each disputed name was decided in this proceeding.

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 Generale des Etablissements Michelin v. James Diaz, Travel Planet Scotland Limited Case No. D2026-0540 1. The Parties The Complainant is Compagnie Generale des Etablissements Michelin, France, represented by Tmark Conseils, France. The Respondent is James Diaz, Travel Planet Scotland Limited, United Kingdom. 2. The Domain Names and Registrar The disputed domain names <michelintastecuisine.com> and <michelintastecuisine.net> are registered with Gname.com Pte. Ltd. (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on February 9, 2026. On February 10, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain names. On February 11, 2026, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response disclosing registrant and contact information for the disputed domain names which differed from the named Respondent (Redacted for privacy) and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on February 11, 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 12, 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 16, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was March 8, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on March 9, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Eva Fiammenghi as the sole panelist in this matter on March 16, 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, Compagnie Générale des Établissements Michelin, is a French corporation established in 1889 and headquartered in Clermont-Ferrand, France. It is one of the world’s leading tyre manufacturers and operates globally in 171 countries, employing more than 114,000 people and running nearly 70 manufacturing facilities. In addition to its tyre business, the Complainant provides maps, travel guides, digital services, and the internationally renowned Michelin Guide, first published in 1900, which awards Michelin Stars to restaurants worldwide. The Michelin Guide rates more than 30,000 establishments in over 30 territories, and over 30 million copies have been sold globally. The Complainant owns a substantial global trademark portfolio for the trademark MICHELIN, covering goods and services in the fields of tyres, transportation, tourism, hospitality, gastronomy, maps, and guide publications. Relevant registrations include: - International Trademark MICHELIN Reg. No. 1254506, registered on December 10, 2014, in classes 9,35,38,39,41,42 - European Union Trade Mark MICHELIN Reg No. 013558366, registered on April 17, 2015, in classes 9, 35, 38, 39, 41, 42 The Complainant owns and operates several domain names incorporating its MICHELIN trademark, including: <michelin.com>, registered December 1, 1993, and the sub-domain <guide.michelin.com>. These domain names are used for the Complainant’s official commercial, informational, and gastronomic guide services. The disputed domain names <michelintastecuisine.com> and <michelintastecuisine.net> were both registered on January 3, 2026. Both disputed domain names resolved to webpages that prominently displayed the MICHELIN trademark, reproduced the Michelin Man (Bibendum), imitated the look and feel of Michelin’s official gastronomic services. 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 names. Notably, the Complainant argues that the disputed domain names incorporate the Complainant’s registered trademark MICHELIN in its entirety, with the mere addition of the descriptive terms “taste” and “cuisine.” The Complainant submits that these additions do not distinguish the disputed domain names from the MICHELIN trademark. Regarding rights or legitimate interests, the Complainant states that it has never authorized the Respondent to use its MICHELIN trademark in any manner, nor to register domain names incorporating the trademark. The Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain names, and the websites resolving from them reproduce the Complainant’s MICHELIN trademark without authorization from the Complainant. page 3 B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, to succeed a complainant must prove that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which the complainant has rights; (ii) the respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name; and (iii) the disputed domain name was registered and is being used in bad faith. These elements are discussed in turn below. In considering these elements, paragraph 15(a) of the Rules provides that the Panel shall decide the Complaint on the basis of statements and documents submitted and in accordance with the Policy, the Rules and any other rules or principles of law that the Panel deems applicable. 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 Panel finds the mark is recognizable within the disputed domain names. Accordingly, the disputed domain names are 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 “taste” and “cusine”) may bear on assessment of the second and third elements, the Panel finds the addition of such terms 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. page 4 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 names. 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 names such as those enumerated in the Policy or otherwise. The Respondent is not commonly known by “michelin”, has no affiliation with the Complainant, and was never authorized to use the MICHELIN trademark. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity, here, claimed copycat sites, passing off, or other types of fraud, can never confer rights or legitimate interests on a respondent. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.13.1. 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 the Respondent registered and used the disputed domain names in bad faith under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The record demonstrates that the Respondent intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its websites by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s well-known MICHELIN trademark as to source, sponsorship, affiliation, or endorsement. Prior to suspension of the disputed domain names by the Registrar, the disputed domain names resolved to webpages prominently displaying the MICHELIN trademark and the Michelin Man (Bibendum) image, imitating the Complainant’s branding and suggesting affiliation with the Michelin Guide. The Panel further notes that the disputed domain names were registered on January 3, 2026, long after the Complainant had secured its trademark registrations and established its global reputation in the MICHELIN brand and the Michelin Guide. Given the longstanding and widespread fame of the Complainant’s trademark, and its well-publicized online presence, the Respondent could not plausibly have been unaware of the Complainant’s rights when registering the disputed domain names. Panels have held that the use of a domain name for illegitimate activity (here, claimed operation of copycat or passing-off websites designed to mislead consumers) constitutes bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.4. 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. 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 names <michelintastecuisine.com> and <michelintastecuisine.net> be transferred to the Complainant. /Eva Fiammenghi/ Eva Fiammenghi Sole Panelist Date: March 30, 2026

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