WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. Gui He Xing Case No. D2018-1446 1. The Parties

The Complainant is Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin of Clermont-Ferrand, France, represented by Dreyfus & associés, France.

The Respondent is Gui He Xing of Zhengzhou, Henan, China. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with HiChina Zhicheng Technology Ltd. (the "Registrar"). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the "Center") on June 29, 2018. On June 29, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 3, 2018, the Registrar transmitted by email to the Center its verification response confirming that the Respondent is listed as the registrant and providing the contact details.

July 11, 2018, the Center sent a communication to the Parties, in English and Chinese, regarding the language of the proceeding. On July 12, 2018, the Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding.

The Center verified that the 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 July 18, 2018. In accordance with the Rules, paragraph 5, the due date for Response was August 7, 2018. The Respondent did not submit any response. Accordingly, the Center notified the Respondent's default on August 8, 2018.

The Center appointed Jonathan Agmon as the sole panelist in this matter on August 14, 2018. 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 is Compagnie Generale des Establissements Michelin, a well-known manufacturer of tires which also provides digital services such as maps and guides to help enrich trips and travels. The Complainant is headquartered in France however, is present in 170 countries worldwide and employs 111,700 people. The Complainant operates 68 production facilities in 17 countries.

The Complainant owns numerous MICHELIN trademark registrations among which are:

- International Trademark MICHELIN, No. 348615 registered on July 24, 1968.

- Chinese Trademark MICHELIN, No. 6167649 registered on January 7, 2010.

- Chinese Trademark MICHELIN, No. 9156074 registered on February 14, 2013.

- Chinese Trademark MICHELIN, No. 136402 registered on April 5, 1980.

In addition, the Complainant is the owner of several domain names, among others, and .

The disputed domain name was registered January 30, 2018. Currently the disputed domain name resolves to an inactive website. 5. Parties' Contentions A. Complainant

The Complainant argues that the disputed domain name is confusingly similar to the Complainant's registered mark MICHELIN since it contains the Complainant's mark in its entirety and states that an addition of a generic term as "cloud" does not negates the confusion of Internet users.

The Complainant also argues that the Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in respect of the disputed domain name since the Complainant is the trademark owner and the Respondent is not affiliated with the Complainant in any way.

The Complainant also argued that the term "Michelin" has no meaning in the English language, and this indicates that the Respondent registered the disputed domain name to gain undue advantage of the Complainant's registered mark and notoriety.

The Complainant claims that the Respondent registered and is using the disputed domain name in bad faith as it is impossible did not know or should have known about the Complainants' rights in the registered and well-known mark. In addition, the passive holding of a disputed domain name affiliated with a well-known mark has been considered use in bad faith.

For all of the above reasons, the Complainant requests the transfer of the disputed domain name. B. Respondent

The Respondent did not reply to the Complainant's contentions. 6. Discussion and Findings 6.1. Language of the Proceeding

Paragraph 11 of the Rules provides that:

"(a) Unless otherwise agreed by the Parties, or specified otherwise in the Registration Agreement, the language of the administrative proceeding shall be the language of the Registration Agreement, subject to the authority of the Panel to determine otherwise, having regard to the circumstances of the administrative proceeding."

The language of the Registration Agreement for the disputed domain name is Chinese, as confirmed by the Registrar in its verification email to the Center of July 3, 2018.

The Complainant requested that the language of the proceeding be English.

The Respondent did not respond.

The Panel cites the following with approval:

"Thus, the general rule is that the parties may agree on the language of the administrative proceeding. In the absence of this agreement, the language of the Registration Agreement shall dictate the language of the proceeding. However, the Panel has the discretion to decide otherwise having regard to the circumstances of the case. The Panel's discretion must be exercised judicially in the spirit of fairness and justice to both parties taking into consideration matters such as command of the language, time and costs. It is important that the language finally decided by the Panel for the proceeding is not prejudicial to either one of the parties in his or her abilities to articulate the arguments for the case." (Groupe Auchan v. xmxzl,WIPO Case No. DCC2006-0004).<