Michelinmotorcycletires.com

The timeline behind michelinmotorcycletires.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.

DECISION Michelin North America, Inc. v. Dominique Nguyen / Esalen International Claim Number: FA1605001673271 PARTIES Complainant is Michelin North America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James M. Bagarazzi of Dority & Manning, Attorneys at Law, P.A., South Carolina. Respondent is Dominique Nguyen / Esalen International (“Respondent”), California. REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME The domain name at issue is <michelinmotorcycletires.com>, registered with Wild West Domains, Llc. PANEL The undersigned certifies that he has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding. Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist. PROCEDURAL HISTORY Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on May 4, 2016; the Forum received payment on May 4, 2016. On May 4, 2016, Wild West Domains, Llc confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <michelinmotorcycletires.com> domain name is registered with Wild West Domains, Llc and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. Wild West Domains, Llc has verified that Respondent is bound by the Wild West Domains, Llc registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with ICANN’s Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”). On May 4, 2016, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of May 24, 2016 by which Respondent could file a Response to the Complaint, via e-mail to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative, and billing contacts, and to postmaster@michelinmotorcycletires.com. Also on May 4, 2016, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the e-mail addresses served and the deadline for a Response, was transmitted to Respondent via post and fax, to all entities and persons listed on Respondent’s registration as technical, administrative and billing contacts. Having received no response from Respondent, the Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default. On May 25, 2016, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed Bruce E. Meyerson as Panelist. Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the Forum has discharged its responsibility under Paragraph 2(a) of the Rules for Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (the "Rules") "to employ reasonably available means calculated to achieve actual notice to Respondent" through submission of Electronic and Written Notices, as defined in Rule 1 and Rule 2. Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the ICANN Policy, ICANN Rules, the Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of any response from Respondent. RELIEF SOUGHT Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant. PARTIES' CONTENTIONS A. Complainant 1. Complainant designs, manufactures, and markets tires for several vehicle industries, including motorcycles, and is involved in vehicle racing and rallies. 2. Complainant has registered the MICHELIN mark with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 892,045, registered June 2, 1970), which demonstrates its rights in the mark. 3. The <michelinmotorcycletires.com> domain is confusingly similar to Complainant’s mark as it wholly incorporates the MICHELIN mark, merely adding the generic terms “motorcycle” and “tires,” and the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com.” 4. Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <michelinmotorcycletires.com> domain name. First, Respondent is not commonly known by the domain name or any variant of Complainant’s mark. Second, Respondent is not licensed or authorized to use Complainant’s mark. 5. Finally, Respondent is not make a bona fide offering of goods or services through the <michelinmotorcycletires.com> domain name or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use. Rather, Respondent fails to make any active use of the domain; the domain resolves to a webpage that says “website coming soon!” 6. Respondent has registered and is using the domain name in bad faith. Because of the fame of Complainant’s mark, Respondent had constructive and/or actual knowledge of the mark at the time the disputed domain was registered. 7. Respondent registered the <michelinmotorcycletires.com> domain in February 2016. B. Respondent Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding. FINDINGS Respondent has consented to transfer the domain name to the Complainant. DISCUSSION Paragraph 15(a) of the Rules instructs this Panel to "decide a complaint on the basis of the statements and documents submitted in accordance with the Policy, these Rules and any rules and principles of law that it deems applicable." Paragraph 4(a) of the Policy requires that Complainant must prove each of the following three elements to obtain an order that a domain name should be cancelled or transferred: (1) the domain name registered by Respondent is identical or confusingly similar to a trademark or service mark in which Complainant has rights; and (2) Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the domain name; and (3) the domain name has been registered and is being used in bad faith. In view of Respondent's failure to submit a response, the Panel shall decide this administrative proceeding on the basis of Complainant's undisputed representations pursuant to paragraphs 5(f), 14(a) and 15(a) of the Rules and draw such inferences it considers appropriate pursuant to paragraph 14(b) of the Rules. The Panel is entitled to accept all reasonable allegations and inferences set forth in the Complaint as true unless the evidence is clearly contradictory. See Vertical Solutions Mgmt., Inc. v. webnet-marketing, inc., FA 95095 (Forum July 31, 2000) (holding that the respondent’s failure to respond allows all reasonable inferences of fact in the allegations of the complaint to be deemed true); see also Talk City, Inc. v. Robertson, D2000-0009 (WIPO Feb. 29, 2000) (“In the absence of a response, it is appropriate to accept as true all allegations of the Complaint.”). Preliminary Issue: Consent to Transfer The Forum was copied on documentation submitted from Respondent to the Forum and Complainant, which is identified in this proceeding as “Other Correspondence.” In this document, Respondent purports to consent to the transfer of the domain name. Respondent states as follows: I've been on travels. I will move domain over to you. Because Respondent has not contested the transfer of the <michelinmotorcycletires.com> domain name but instead agrees to transfer the domain name to Complainant, the Panel will forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order an immediate transfer of the <michelinmotorcycletires.com> domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (Nat. Arb. Forum Jan. 9, 2003) (transferring the domain name registration where the respondent stipulated to the transfer); see also Malev Hungarian Airlines, Ltd. v. Vertical Axis Inc., FA 212653 (Nat Arb. Forum Jan. 13, 2004) (“In this case, the parties have both asked for the domain name to be transferred to the Complainant . . . Since the requests of the parties in this case are identical, the Panel has no scope to do anything other than to recognize the common request, and it has no mandate to make findings of fact or of compliance (or not) with the Policy.”); see also Disney Enters., Inc. v. Morales, FA 475191 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 24, 2005) (“[U]nder such circumstances, where Respondent has agreed to comply with Complainant’s request, the Panel felt it to be expedient and judicial to forego the traditional UDRP analysis and order the transfer of the domain names.”). DECISION The Respondent having consented to the transfer of the <michelinmotorcycletires.com> domain name, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED. Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <michelinmotorcycletires.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant. Bruce E. Meyerson, Panelist Dated: May 31, 2016 Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page. Click Here to return to our Home Page

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