Atseuromaster.pro

The timeline behind atseuromaster.pro

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 Euromaster Services et Management v. fraund aweiro Case No. D2026-1366 1. The Parties The Complainant is Euromaster Services et Management, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France. The Respondent is fraund aweiro, United States of America (“United States”). 2. The Domain Name and Registrar The disputed domain name <atseuromaster.pro> is registered with Dynadot Inc (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History The Complaint was filed with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on March 31, 2026. On March 31, 2026, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On April 2, 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 April 2, 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 amended Complaint on April 3, 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 April 9, 2026. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was April 29, 2026. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent’s default on April 30, 2026. page 2 The Center appointed Levan Nanobashvili as the sole panelist in this matter on May 4, 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, a French company, is a wholly owned subsidiary of the Michelin Group. The Complainant operates a pan-European network providing tire services and fast-fit maintenance for vehicles. The Complainant employs 10,000 personnel and operates more than 2,700 service centers across Europe. It maintains one of the largest European networks for light vehicles and industrial vehicle maintenance (both company-owned and franchised) across 18 countries. The Complainant owns numerous registrations worldwide for EUROMASTER, including the following: 1) United Kingdom trademark (word), Registration No. UK00001455074, registered on June 25, 1993, duly renewed, in International Classes 12 and 37; and 2) French trademark (word), Registration No. 1624667, registered on July 25, 1990, duly renewed, in International Classes 12 and 37. The Complainant owns several registrations for ATS mark in the United Kingdom, including the following: 1) Registration No. UK00001104769 (word), registered on November 15, 1978, duly renewed, in International Class 12; and 2) Registration No. UK00001289524 (word), registered on September 23, 1994, duly renewed, in International Classes 37 and 41. The Complainant holds various domain names incorporating EUROMASTER mark, including <euromaster.com>, <atseuromaster.com>, and <atseuromaster.co.uk>. The disputed domain name was registered on November 14, 2025. As of the date of the Complaint and this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering vehicle maintenance services. The Respondent is reportedly based in the United States. The Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent on January 21, 2026, followed by several reminders. The Respondent did not reply. 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: (i) It owns numerous registrations worldwide for the EUROMASTER mark; (ii) The disputed domain name reproduces the Complainant’s trademark EUROMASTER in its entirety; page 3 (iii) The Respondent has neither connection with the Complainant nor authorization to use the Complainant’s mark; (iv) The Complainant’s trademark registration predates the registration of the disputed domain name; (v) Prior to filing of the Complaint, the Complainant sent a cease-and-desist letter to the Respondent, followed by several reminders. The Respondent did not reply; (vi) It is impossible to conceive of any circumstances in which the Respondent could legitimately use the disputed domain name without invariably taking unfair advantage of the Complainant’s rights; (vii) It is implausible that the Respondent was unaware of the Complainant’s trademark while registering the disputed domain name; (viii) A quick trademark search would have revealed to the Respondent the existence of the Complainant’s trademark; (ix) The composition of the disputed domain name evidences intent to misleadingly divert consumers by taking advantage of the goodwill and reputation of the Complainant’s trademark; and (x) Internet users can reasonably believe that the disputed domain name is linked to the Complainant, leading them to associate the Respondent’s services with the Complainant’s offerings. B. Respondent The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant’s contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings Under paragraph 4(a) of the Policy, the Complainant carries the burden of proving that: (i) the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly 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 name; and (iii) the disputed domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. The Respondent’s default in the case at hand does not automatically result in a decision in favor of the Complainant. However, paragraph 5(f) of the Rules provides that if the Respondent does not submit a Response, in the absence of exceptional circumstances, the Panel shall decide the dispute based upon the Complaint. Further, according to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules, the Panel shall draw such inferences from the Respondent’s failure to submit a Response as it considers appropriate. 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. page 4 The Complainant has shown rights in respect of the EUROMASTER and ATS trademarks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.2.1. The Complainant's marks are reproduced in their entirety within the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the EUROMASTER and ATS marks are clearly recognizable within the disputed domain name. Accordingly, the disputed domain name is identical to the marks for the purposes of the Policy. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.7. The Panel notes that even if the ATS element is viewed merely as an abbreviation rather than as the Complainant’s trademark, the disputed domain name still incorporates the Complainant’s EUROMASTER trademark in its entirety. Where the relevant trademark is recognizable within the disputed domain name, the addition of other terms (whether descriptive, geographical, pejorative, meaningless, or otherwise) would not prevent a finding of confusing similarity under the first element. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.8. The addition of the generic Top-Level Domain “.pro” is a standard registration requirement and, as such, is disregarded under the first element confusing similarity test. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 1.11.1. 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 Respondent provided no evidence that it has used or made demonstrable preparations to use the disputed domain name in connection with a bona fide offering of goods or services, has been commonly known by the disputed domain name, or has made a legitimate noncommercial use thereof. The Respondent has not rebutted the Complainant’s contention that it has not authorized the Respondent to use the EUROMASTER and ATS marks, or that there is no relationship between them that would justify the Respondent’s registration and use of the Complainant’s trademarks in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds that the composition of the disputed domain name, which combines two of the Complainant’s trademarks, carries a high risk of implied affiliation. Such a combination is likely to lead Internet users to believe that the domain name is owned, sponsored, or endorsed by the Complainant. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 2.5.1. page 5 As of the date of the Complaint and this Decision, the disputed domain name resolves to a website offering vehicle maintenance services. Such activity is directly competitive with the business of the Complainant. Consequently, the Panel finds that this is not a bona fide offering of goods or services by the Respondent under paragraph 4(c)(i) of the Policy. 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 is intentionally attempting to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks. 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, but other circumstances may be relevant in assessing whether a respondent’s registration and use of a domain name is in bad faith. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.1. The Panel notes that the Complainant’s trademark registrations predate the registration of the disputed domain name. The Complainant’s earliest registration of the EUROMASTER mark in France dates from 1990. The disputed domain name was registered in 2025. A gap of several decades between registration of the Complainant’s trademarks and the Respondent’s registration of the disputed domain name containing the trademark at issue can indicate the bad faith registration. See Hunza G Limited v. Nikos Kalouris, WIPO Case No. D2025-3956 and Hi-TEC Sports International Holdings B.V. v. Thomas Birch, Finlay Nolan, Anna Akhtar, Tyler Reynolds, Keira Donnelly, WIPO Case No. D2024-1891. Noting the near instantaneous and global reach of the Internet and search engines, and particularly in circumstances where the complainant’s mark is widely known (including in its sector) or highly specific and a respondent cannot credibly claim to have been unaware of the mark, panels have been prepared to infer that the respondent knew, or have found that the respondent should have known, that its registration would be identical or confusingly similar to a complainant’s mark. WIPO Overview 3.1, section 3.2.2. The Panel finds that a simple search for the EUROMASTER and ATS marks would have revealed the Complainant’s trademarks to the Respondent. The Respondent’s failure to conduct such a search, or its decision to proceed despite awareness of the mark, supports a finding of registration and use in bad faith. The disputed domain name is identical to the Complainant’s trademarks. By using an identical domain name to host a competing service, the Respondent has intentionally attempted to attract, for commercial gain, Internet users to its website by creating a likelihood of confusion with the Complainant’s marks. The Panel finds that such conduct, which capitalizes on users’ attempts to reach the Complainant’s websites, evidences bad faith registration and use under paragraph 4(b)(iv) of the Policy. The Respondent failed to reply to the cease-and-desist letter and did not explain or justify the use of the Complainant’s trademark in the disputed domain name. UDRP panels have consistently held that the failure to respond to a cease-and-desist letter may be a factor in establishing bad faith registration and use of a domain name. See Carrefour v. Jan Everno, The Management Group II, WIPO Case No. D2017-0586, Remy Cointreau Luxembourg S.A. v. Deividas Samulionis, UAB “Sentosa”, WIPO Case No. D2016-2232, and Encyclopaedia Britannica, Inc. v. John Zuccarini and The Cupcake Patrol a/ka Country Walk a/k/a Cupcake Party, WIPO Case No. D2000-0330. The Panel concurs with the Complainant’s contention that the Respondent has registered and is using the disputed domain name primarily to capitalize on the reputation and goodwill of the Complainant’s trademark. page 6 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 <atseuromaster.pro> be transferred to the Complainant. /Levan Nanobashvili/ Levan Nanobashvili Sole Panelist Date: May 18, 2026

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