WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center ADMINISTRATIVE PANEL DECISION Compagnie Générale des Etablissements Michelin v. GMO-Z.com RUNSYSTEM, GMO-Z.com RUNSYSTEM JSC / Hoang Hai Case No. D2018-1511 1. The Parties

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

The Respondent is GMO-Z.com RUNSYSTEM, GMO-Z.com RUNSYSTEM JSC of Hanoi, Viet Nam / Hoang Hai of Hanoi, Viet Nam. 2. The Domain Name and Registrar

The disputed domain name is registered with GMO Internet, Inc. d/b/a Discount‑D and O (the “Registrar”). 3. Procedural History

The Complaint was filed in English with the WIPO Arbitration and Mediation Center (the “Center”) on July 6, 2018. On July 6, 2018, the Center transmitted by email to the Registrar a request for registrar verification in connection with the disputed domain name. On July 9, 2018, 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 and contact information in the Complaint. The Center sent an email communication to the Complainant on July 10, 2018 providing the registrant and contact information disclosed by the Registrar, and inviting the Complainant to submit an amendment to the Complaint. The Complainant filed an amended Complaint on July 13, 2018.

On July 10, 2018, the Center sent an email in English and Japanese to the Parties regarding the language of the proceeding. The Complainant confirmed its request that English be the language of the proceeding on July 12, 2018. The Respondent did not comment on the language of the proceeding by the specified due date.

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 in English and Japanese 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 Keiji Kondo 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 a French corporation designing and distributing tires, headquartered in Clermont‑Ferrand, France. The Complainant is present in 170 countries, has 111,700 employees and operates 68 production facilities in 17 countries, which together produced 187 million tires in 2016.

The Complainant is the owner of the following trademark registrations:

- International Trademark No. 492879, MICHELIN, registered on May 10, 1985, (duly renewed) covering goods in class 12, and

- International Trademark No. 771031, MICHELIN, registered on June 11, 2001, covering goods and services in classes 5, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 20, 21, 24, 25, 39 and 42.

The disputed domain name was registered on March 6, 2018 and resolves to a Vietnamese website selling products under the trademarks of the Complainant and its competitors. 5. Parties’ Contentions A. Complainant

The disputed domain name is identical or at least confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN. People easily associate the disputed domain name with the Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN. The generic term “lopxe” only means “tires” in Vietnamese.

Moreover, the extension “.shop” is not to be taken into consideration when examining the identity or confusing similarity between the Complainant’s trademark and the disputed domain name. The generic Top-Level Domain (“gTLD”) “.shop” should be disregarded in comparison as it is merely a requirement when registering a domain name.

The Complainant has used the trademark MICHELIN in connection with a wide variety of products and services around the world. Consequently, the public has learnt to perceive the goods and services offered under this mark as being those of the Complainant. Therefore, the public would reasonably assume that the disputed domain name would be owned by the Complainant or at least assume that it is related to the Complainant.

For all of the above-mentioned reasons, the disputed domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the Complainant’s trademark MICHELIN. Therefore the condition of paragraph 4(a)(i) of the Policy is fulfilled.

The Respondent has no rights or legitimate interests in the disputed domain name.

The Respondent is neither affiliated with the Complainant in any way nor has it be