Michelin North America, Inc. v. yopi purnama / Personal
Claim Number: FA1802001770767
Complainant is Michelin North America, Inc. (“Complainant”), represented by James M. Bagarazzi of Dority & Manning, Attorneys at Law, P.A., South Carolina, USA. Respondent is yopi purnama / Personal (“Respondent”), India.
REGISTRAR AND DISPUTED DOMAIN NAME
The domain name at issue is <michelindevelopment.us>, registered with NameCheap, Inc..
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.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) as Panelist.
Complainant submitted a Complaint to the Forum electronically on February 7, 2018; the Forum received payment on February 7, 2018.
On February 7, 2018, NameCheap, Inc. confirmed by e-mail to the Forum that the <michelindevelopment.us> domain name is registered with NameCheap, Inc. and that Respondent is the current registrant of the name. NameCheap, Inc. has verified that Respondent is bound by the NameCheap, Inc. registration agreement and has thereby agreed to resolve domain disputes brought by third parties in accordance with with the U.S. Department of Commerce’s usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (the “Policy”).
On February 12, 2018, the Forum served the Complaint and all Annexes, including a Written Notice of the Complaint, setting a deadline of March 5, 2018 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@michelindevelopment.us. Also on February 12, 2018, 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 March 9, 2018, pursuant to Complainant's request to have the dispute decided by a single-member Panel, the Forum appointed the Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.) 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 to the usTLD Dispute Resolution Policy (“Rules”). Therefore, the Panel may issue its decision based on the documents submitted and in accordance with the usTLD Policy, usTLD 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.
Complainant requests that the domain name be transferred from Respondent to Complainant.
A. Complainant
Complainant designs, manufactures and markets tires for several vehicle industries and vehicle racing and rallies. Complainant has rights in the MICHELIN mark through its trademark registrations with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) (e.g., Reg. No. 892,045, registered Jun. 2, 1970). Respondent’s <michelindevelopment.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICHELIN mark as Respondent merely adds the generic term “development” and a “.us” country-code top level domain (“ccTLD”) to the mark.
Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the <michelindevelopment.us> domain name as Respondent is not a licensee of Complainant and Respondent is not commonly known by the disputed domain name. Additionally, Respondent diverts users to its disputed domain name, where Respondent advertises its own goods and services and users assume there is some kind of affiliation between Respondent and Complainant.
Respondent registered and uses the disputed domain name in bad faith. Respondent diverts users seeking Complainant’s goods and services and offers its own unrelated goods and services at the <michelindevelopment.us> domain name and this may indicate bad faith registration or use. Additionally, Respondent had agreed to transfer the disputed domain name, but subsequently failed to transfer and respond to cease and desist letters. Furthermore, Respondent had actual and constructive notice of Complainant’s rights in the MICHELIN mark at the time Respondent registered the disputed domain name.
B. Respondent
Respondent failed to submit a formal Response in this proceeding. However, Respondent has consented to transfer the <michelindevelopment.us> domain name to Complainant.
CONSENT TO TRANSFER
The Forum was copied on documentation submitted from Respondent to Complainant, which is identified in this proceeding as “Other Correspondence.” In this document, Respondent consents to the transfer of the <michelindevelopment.us> domain name.
However, after the initiation of this proceeding, NameCheap placed a hold on Respondent’s account and therefore Respondent cannot transfer the disputed domain name while this proceeding is still pending. As a result, in a circumstance such as this, where Respondent has not contested the transfer of the disputed 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 michelindevelopment.us> domain name. See Boehringer Ingelheim Int’l GmbH v. Modern Ltd. – Cayman Web Dev., FA 133625 (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 (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 (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.”).
Complainant designs, manufactures and markets tires for several vehicle industries and vehicle racing and rallies. Complainant has rights in the MICHELIN mark through its trademark registrations with the USPTO (e.g., Reg. No. 892,045, registered Jun. 2, 1970). Respondent’s <michelindevelopment.us> domain name is confusingly similar to Complainant’s MICHELIN mark.
Respondent, yopi purnama / Personal, registered the michelindevelopment.us> domain name on Jul. 21, 2017. Respondent has consented to the transfer of the disputed domain name to Complainant.
Accordingly, it is Ordered that the <michelindevelopment.us> domain name be TRANSFERRED from Respondent to Complainant.
The Honorable Charles K. McCotter, Jr. (Ret.), Panelist
Dated: March 23, 2018
Click Here to return to the main Domain Decisions Page.
Click Here to return to our Home Page