Michelin North America, Inc. v. Mike Harrington
Claim Number: FA1102001372830
Complainant is Michelin North America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by Neil M. Batavia of DORITY & MANNING, ATTORNEYS AT LAW, P.A., South Carolina, USA. Respondent is Mike Harrington (“Respondent”), New Hampshire, USA.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <michelincommercialgroup.com>, registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc.
The undersigned certifies that he or she has acted independently and impartially and to the best of his or her knowledge has no known conflict in serving as Panelist in this proceeding.
Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the National Arbitration Forum electronically on February 11, 2011; the National Arbitration Forum received payment on February 15, 2011.
On February 16, 2011, GoDaddy.com, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the National Arbitration Forum that the <michelincommercialgroup.com> domain name is registered with GoDaddy.com, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. GoDaddy.com, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the GoDaddy.com, Inc. 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 March 7, 2011, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 28, 2011 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@michelincommercialgroup.com. Also on March 7, 2011, the Written Notice of the Complaint, notifying Respondent of the email 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 National Arbitration Forum transmitted to the parties a Notification of Respondent Default.
On March 30, 2011, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the National Arbitration Forum appointed Sandra J. Franklin as Panelist.
Having reviewed the communications records, the Administrative Panel (the "Panel") finds that the National Arbitration 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 National Arbitration Forum's Supplemental Rules and any rules and principles of law that the Panel deems applicable, without the benefit of a response from Respondent.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant makes the following assertions:
1. Respondent’s <michelincommercialgroup.com> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICHELIN mark.
2. Respondent does not have any rights or legitimate interests in the <michelincommercialgroup.com> domain name.
3. Respondent registered and used the <michelincommercialgroup.com> domain name in bad faith.
B. Respondent failed to submit a Response in this proceeding.
Complainant, Michelin North America, Inc., designs, manufactures, and markets tires for several vehicle industries, and is involved in vehicle racing and rallies. Complainant uses the MICHELIN mark in connection with its business. Complainant holds numerous trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) for the MICHELIN mark (e.g., Reg. No. 892,045 issued June 2, 1970).
Respondent, Mike Harrington, registered the <michelincommercialgroup.com> domain name on June 4, 2010. The disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website.
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."
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(e), 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 (Nat. Arb. 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.”).
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.
The Panel finds that Complainant’s federal trademark registrations sufficiently prove Complainant’s rights in the MICHELIN mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i). See AOL LLC v. Interrante, FA 681239 (Nat. Arb. Forum May 23, 2006) (finding that where the complainant had submitted evidence of its registration with the USPTO, “such evidence establishes complainant’s rights in the mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).”); see also Reebok Int’l Ltd. v. Santos, FA 565685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 21, 2005) (finding trademark registration with the USPTO was adequate to establish rights pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i)).
Respondent’s <michelincommercialgroup.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its MICHELIN mark. Respondent replicates Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name and then adds the generic terms “commercial” and “group” to the mark. Respondent also affixes the generic top-level domain (“gTLD”) “.com” to Complainant’s mark in the disputed domain name. The Panel finds these additions do not sufficiently distinguish Respondent’s domain name from Complainant’s mark. See Arthur Guinness Son & Co. (Dublin) Ltd. v. Healy/BOSTH, D2001-0026 (WIPO Mar. 23, 2001) (finding confusing similarity where the domain name in dispute contains the identical mark of the complainant combined with a generic word or term); see also Disney Enters. Inc. v. McSherry, FA 154589 (Nat. Arb. Forum June 17, 2003) (finding the <disneyvacationvillas.com> domain name to be confusingly similar to Complainant’s DISNEY mark because it incorporated Complainant’s entire famous mark and merely added two terms to it); see also Reese v. Morgan, FA 917029 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 5, 2007) (finding that the mere addition of the generic top-level domain “.com” is insufficient to differentiate a disputed domain name from a mark). Accordingly, the Panel determines that Respondent’s <michelincommercialgroup.com> domain name is confusingly similar to its MICHELIN mark pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(i).
Complainant must first make a prima facie case showing Respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the <michelincommercialgroup.com> domain name pursuant to Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii). The burden then shifts to Respondent to demonstrate it has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name. The Panel may infer from Respondent’s failure to submit a Response that Respondent lacks rights or legitimate interests. See Intel Corp. v. Macare, FA 660685 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 26, 2006) (finding the “complainant must first make a prima facie case that [the] respondent lacks rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain names under Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii), and then the burden shifts to [the] respondent to show it does have rights or legitimate interests.”); see also Am. Express Co. v. Fang Suhendro, FA 129120 (Nat. Arb. Forum Dec. 30, 2002) (“[B]ased on Respondent's failure to respond, it is presumed that Respondent lacks all rights and legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.”). Although Respondent has failed to submit a Response, the Panel will evaluate the record to determine whether Respondent has rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c).
The WHOIS information lists “Mike Harrington” as the registrant of the <michelincommercialgroup.com> domain name, which the Panel finds is not similar to the disputed domain name. With no evidence in the record to the contrary, the Panel concludes Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii). See Tercent Inc. v. Lee Yi, FA 139720 (Nat. Arb. Forum Feb. 10, 2003) (stating “nothing in Respondent’s WHOIS information implies that Respondent is ‘commonly known by’ the disputed domain name” as one factor in determining that Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) does not apply); see also M. Shanken Commc’ns v. WORLDTRAVELERSONLINE.COM, FA 740335 (Nat. Arb. Forum Aug. 3, 2006) (finding that the respondent was not commonly known by the <cigaraficionada.com> domain name under Policy ¶ 4(c)(ii) based on the WHOIS information and other evidence in the record).
Complainant submits a screen shot of the website resolving from the <michelincommercialgroup.com> domain name. This image shows a site that contains the message, “Sorry! This site is not currently available.” The Panel finds the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. Therefore, the Panel holds Respondent does not use the <michelincommercialgroup.com> domain name for a bona fide offering of goods or services under Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or a legitimate noncommercial or fair use under Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii). See Pirelli & C. S.p.A. v. Tabriz, FA 921798 (Apr. 12, 2007) (finding that the respondent lacked rights or legitimate interests in a confusingly similar domain name that it had not made demonstrable preparations to use since its registration seven months prior to the complaint); see also George Weston Bakeries Inc. v. McBroom, FA 933276 (Nat. Arb. Forum Apr. 25, 2007) (finding that the respondent had no rights or legitimate interests in a domain name under either Policy ¶ 4(c)(i) or Policy ¶ 4(c)(iii) where it failed to make any active use of the domain name).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(ii).
The Panel finds that the enumerated Policy ¶ 4(b) factors are not exhaustive and the totality of the circumstances may be considered when analyzing bad faith registration and use under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii). See Digi Int’l Inc. v. DDI Sys., FA 124506 (Nat. Arb. Forum Oct. 24, 2002) (determining that Policy ¶ 4(b) sets forth certain circumstances, without limitation, that shall be evidence of registration and use of a domain name in bad faith); see also Cellular One Group v. Brien, D2000-0028 (WIPO Mar. 10, 2000) (finding that the criteria specified in 4(b) of the Policy is not an exhaustive list of bad faith evidence).
Failure to make active use of a domain name can amount to bad faith use when a respondent registers a confusingly similar domain name after the trademark holder acquired rights in its mark. See Accor v. Value-Domain Com, Value Domain, D2009-1797 (WIPO Feb. 8, 2010) (finding bad faith use where respondent passively held the domain name and the domain name registration occurred approximately 19 years after the complainant had filed trademark registrations in the mark); see also OneWest Bank, FSB v. Jacob Zakaria d/b/a EQ Funding, FA 1328894 (Nat. Arb. Forum July 20, 2010) (the panel found bad faith use where respondent failed to make active use of the disputed domain name and the respondent registered the domain name approximately 7 years after the complainant registered its trademark with the USPTO). Complainant acquired rights in the MICHELIN mark approximately 40 years before Respondent registered its confusingly similar domain name (e.g., Reg. No. 892,045 issued June 2, 1970). Therefore, the Panel finds that Respondent registered the <michelincommercialgroup.com> domain name, which is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICHELIN mark, after Complainant acquired rights in the mark. Accordingly, the Panel finds Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith under Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
The Panel finds Complainant has satisfied Policy ¶ 4(a)(iii).
Having established all three elements required under the ICANN Policy, the Panel concludes that relief shall be GRANTED.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <michelincommercialgroup.com> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
Sandra J. Franklin, Panelist
Dated: April 6, 2011
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page